- ■ - Uilll 


BUDDHISM 


AND 


CHRISTIANITY 

FACE  TO  FACE; 


OR  AN  ORAL  DISCUSSION  BETWEEN  THE 


REV.  MIGETTUWATTE,  '1 

A 

Buddhist  Priest, 


REV.  D.  SILVA, 

* AND  AN 

. English  Clergyman. 


HELD  AT  PANTURAy  CEYLON. 


WITH  AN 


INTRODUCTION  AND  ANNOTATIONS 


BY 


J.  M.  PEEBLES,  M.D., 

Fellow  of  thfe  Academy  of  Sciences,  New  Orleans,  U.S.A.  ; 
Fellow  of  the  Anthropological  Society,  London ; 
Corresponding  Member  of  the  Psychological  Society  of 
Great  Britain ; Corresponding  Member  of  the 
Oriental  Society  of  Archaeology,  India,  &c. 


BOSTON : 

COLBY  AND  RICH,  PUBLISHERS, 

9 Montgomeuy  Place. 

1878. 


,1 


\ 


% 


■ ' ‘j 


- 


k 


«( 


BUDDHISM 

AMO 

CHRISTIANITY 

FACE  TO  FACE; 

OR  AN  ORAL  DISCUSSION  BETWEEN  THE 


REV.  MIGETTUWATTE,  ' 

A r and  - 

Buddhist  Priest, 


REV.  D.  SILVA, 

AN 

English  Clergyman. 


HELD  AT  TANTUEA,  CEYLON. 


WITH  AN 


INTRODUCTION  AND  ANNOTATIONS 


BY 

J.  M.  PEEBLES,  M.D., 

Fell  ow  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences,  New  Orleans,  U.S.A. ; 
Fellow  of  the  Anthropological  Society,  London ; 
Corresponding  Member  of  the  Psychological  Society  of 
Great  Britain ; Corresponding  Member  of  the 
Oriental  Society  of  Archsology,  India,  &C. 


BOSTON : 

COLBY  AND  RICH,  PUBLISHERS, 

9 Montgomery  Place. 


PREFACE. 


"With  an  admiration  of  the  calmness  that  characterises  the 
Oriental  mind,  and  a deep  interest  in  the  symbolisms  that 
underlie  the  Eastern  religions,  I had  long  desired  to  see  these 
religions,  especially  Buddhism,  brought  into  the  arena  of 
discussion  face  to  face  with  the  Christian  religion,  that  each 
system  might  he  subjected  to  the  test  of  controversy.  This 
was  partially  done  awhile  since  at  Pantura,  Ceylon,  where  a 
Buddhist  priest  met,  in  an  oral  debate,  the  Rev.  Mi'.  Silva, 
a "Wesleyan  minister. 

The  discussion  continued  two  days,  before  an  almost 
breathless  audience,  numbering  at  times  from  five  to  seven 
thousand  in  attendance.  Each  of  the  parties  had  their 
sympathising  friends,  and  both,  as  usual,  claimed  the  victory. 
So  far  as  I heard  expressions  from  what  seemed  to  be 
impartial  minds,  they  were  to  the  end  that  the  Buddhist 
priest,  being  the  most  graceful  speaker,  and  adapting  him- 
self to  the  popular  mind,  carried  the  multitude  with  him. 
It  is  certain  that  some  of  the  Christians  did  not  feel  satisfied 
with  the  result. 

The  debate  was  reported,  and  a few  copies  published  by 
John  Capper,  Esq.,  Editor  of  the  Ceylon  Times.  “ The 
report,”  so  he  says,  “ has  been  revised  by  the  respective 
disputants,  so  that  it  may  be  taken  as  a correct  account  of 
what  passed.  The  Pali  extracts  were  revised  by  Rev.  C. 
Alwis  and  a portion  by  Mr.  L.  de  Zoysa,  the  Government 
interpreter.” 


mTEODUCTION. 


ORIGIN  AND  PREVALENCE  OF  BUDDHISM. 

A pilgrim  through  eternity, 

In  countless  births  have  I been  bom.” 

“ Mind  is  the  root ; actions  proceed  from  the  mind.  If  any  one 
speak  or  act  from  a corrupt  mind,  suffering  will  follow,  as  the  dust 
follows  the  rolling  wheel” 

Buddha 

Only  think  of  it — there  are  estimated  to  be  500,000,000  of 
Buddhists  in  Ceylon,  China,  Japan,  Thibet,  Burmah,  Siam, 
and  other  Eastern  coun  r^es — something  like  one-third  of  the 
whole  human  race ! 

The  founder  of  this  vast  body  of  religionists  was 
Guatama  Buddha,  born  at  Kapilavastu,  in  Northern  India, 
about  the  year  556  b.  c.,  according  to  Max  Miiller,  and  the 
best  Hindu  authority.  He  belonged  by  descent  to  the 
Sakya  clan — the  proud  Solar  race  of  India.  . Passing  by  his 
earlier  years,  given  to  meditation  and  reverie — passing  by 
the  spiritual  marvels  that  preceded  his  public  teachings,  it  is 
but  the  commonest  justice  to  say  that  he  hallowed  the  nation 
that  gave  him  birth,  and  that  his  practical  teachings  have 
become  largely  the  common  heritage  of  humanity. 

On  Himalaya’s  lonely  steep 

There  lived  of  old  a holy  sage. 

Of  shrivelled  form,  and  bent  with  age, 

Inured  to  meditations  deep. 

He — when  great  Buddha  had  been  bom. 

The  glory  of  the  Sakya  race. 

Endowed  with  every  holy  grace 
To  save  the  suffering  world  forlorn— 


6 


Behold  strange  portents,  signs  which  taught 
The  wise,  that  that  auspicious  time 
Had  witnessed  some  event  sublim^ 

With  universal  blessings  fraught. 

• * • • • 

But  once,  0 men,  in  many  years, 

The  fir-tree  somewhere  flowers,  perhaps  | 

So  after  countless  ages  lapse, 

A Buddha  once  on  earth  appears  1 

The  world  of  men  and  gods  to  bless, 

The  way  of  rest  and  peace  to  teach, 

A holy  law  this  god  did  preach— 

A law  of  stainless  righteousness. 

If,  spuming  worldly  pomp  as  vain. 

You  choose  to  lead  a tranquil  life. 

And  wander  forth  from  home  and  wife* 

You,  too,  a Buddha’s  rank  shall  gain,” 

Chreat  thinters,  great  self-sacrificing  souls  such  as  Buddha, 
are  the  makers  of  history,  and  the  standard-bearers  of  the 
ages.  They  live  immortal  in  books,  and  more  so,  if  possible, 
in  the  memories  of  admiring  worshippers, 

Guatama  Bud  lha,  drinking  from  the  fountain  of 
inspiration,  became,  long  before  the  Christian  era,  a central 
and  radiating  sun,  the  light  from  which  crystallised  into 
Buddhism,  the  one  great  religious  institution  of  the  Orient. 
And  now,  after  a lapse  of  over  2000  years,  it  is  still  afire 
with  energy  and  spiritual  vitality.  Its  shrines  multiply ; 
converts  flock  to  i‘s  standard  ; and  thoughtful  minds  in  far- 
away Europe  aud  America  are  more  and  more  attracted  to 
its  catholic  spirit  and  broad  tolerant  principles. 

The  editor  of  the  oldest  daily  newspaper  in  the  island  of 
Ceylon — the  Ceylon  Times — had  a little  while  since  the 
following  editorial  touching  the  status  and  progress  of  Bud- 
dhism in  Ceylon 

“ There  is  no  doubt  that  whilst  we  are  congratulating 
ourselves  on  the  successful  work  of  our  missionary  and 
educational  establishments,  the  Buddhists  are  stimulated 
the  same  success  to  fresh  efforts  in  behalf  of  their  own  faith. 


7 


Not  only  have  one  or  two  of  the  most  educated  men  amongst 
them,  priests  and  laj'men,  put  forward  pamphlets  and 
periodicals  in  the  vernacular,  in  defence  and  illustration  of 
their  creed,  but  there  is  a greater  activity  generally  amongst 
the  Buddhist  priesthood,  with  the  object  of  awakening  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  a more  lively  fe  ling  tow  rds  their  faith. 
Religious  services  are  now  being  held  every  Sunday,  as  the 
appointed  day  of  rest  amongst  nearly  all  classes,  whereas  it 
was  the  wont  of  the  priesthood  some  few  years  ago  to  call 
their  congregations  together  only  on  the  o easion  of  some 
day  memorable  in  their  calendar  for  its  sanctity.  Temples 
are  in  course  of  construction,  and  where  sucu  work  is  not 
immediately  practicable,  temporary  structures  have  been 
erected  in  which  the  people  may  assemble,  and  seated  on 
benches  listen  to  the  recital  of  ‘ Bana,’  and  the  exhortations 
and  illustrations  of  the  ministering  priest. 

« • • • • 

One  such  structure  of  rather  large  size  we  entered  on  a 
recent  Sunday.  The  ser^uce  was  conducted  by  Sipkadua 
Sumangalabhidana,  High  Priest  of  Adam’s  Peak,  the  most 
accomplished  Pali  scholar  in  the  island.  He  commenced  by 
the  recital  of  ‘ Bana,’  in  the  responses  to  whi-^h  the  assem- 
bled congregation  joined  in  a most  proper  and  devout 
manner.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  prayer,  the  High  Priest, 
always  seated,  and  holding  a small  talipot  fan  in  his  Laud, 
commenced  his  address,  which  was  intended  as  an  intro- 
duction to  a course  of  lectures  on  Buddhism. 

“ The  learned  High  Priest  commenced  enumerating 
some  of  the  most  important  Buddliist  books,  and  briefly 
explaining  their  contents,  and  the  objects  for  which  they 
were  written.  He  stated  that  Buddha’s  doctrines  may  be 
divided  into  two  parts — one  the  philosophical  portion,  con- 
taining sublime  truths  which  only  the  eminently  learned  can 
understand,  and  the  other,  the  plain  discourses,  embodying 
great  truths,  but  couched  in  homely  language.  The  homely 
language  used,  the  priest  went  on  to  say,  often  conveyed 
false  ideas  with  it,  but  such  language  was  made  the  medium 
of  conveying  facts,  with  the  view  of  adapting  himself  to  the 
capacities  of  the  common  people,  and  he  w'ould  particularly 
remind  them  that  they  were  not  to  suppose  that  the  ‘ Great 
High  Buddha  ’ meant  to  countenance  the  superficial  meaning 
which  those  words  implied. 

• • • • • 


8 


**  After  speating  of  the  importance  of  -worts,  of  the 
necessity  of  personal  merit,  he  enlarged  upon  8on-nn, 
Sakradagami,  Anagami,  and  Arhat,  the  four  paths  of  -virtue 
prescribed  by  Buddha  to  obtain  Nirwana  (at  the  mention  of 
which  all  the  assembled  crowd  cried  Sadu)  ; he  concluded  a 
learned  sermon  of  some  two  hours’  duration  by  exhorting 
the  congregation  to  exercise  patience,  and  to  follow  Buddha’s 
command  of  not  even  so  much  as  thinking  evil  of  those  who 
cruelly  used  and  persecuted  them. 

“ The  priest  had  neither  book  nor  any  notes  to  refer  to, 
but  the  able  manner  in  which  he  freely  quoted  from  the 
various  Pali  works,  giving  the  title  of  every  book  in  support 
of  his  statements,  the  clear,  logical  manner  in  which  he 
reasoned,  explaining  each  difficult  term  he  used,  giving  even 
the  derivation  of  each  word,  and  the  able  summing  up,  was, 
to  say  the  least,  very  remarkable. 

“ Attached  to  the  temple,  Avhich  is  to  be  erected  on  the 
ground  now  occupied  by  the  temporary  building,  will  be  a 
college  for  priests  and  laymen,  in  which  Pali  alone  will  be 
taught  to  such  students  as  may  frequent  it  for  secidar 
education  only,  and  the  High  Priest  stated  how  gladly  he 
would  give  instruction  to  any  English  gentleman  desiring  to 
learn  the  Pali  language.” 

THE  DOCTRINES  OF  BUDDHISM — NIRVANA. 

Buddhism  has  been  charged  -with  atheism.  This  is  rank 
injustice.  It  is  true  that  Buddhists  do  not  believe  in  a 
personal,  human-shaped  God,  the  subject  of  limitations,  and 
-even  of  such  passions  as  anger  and  jealousy;  but  they  do 
believe  in  a Supreme  Power — the  ineffable,  the  infinite 
Presence.  They  further  believe  that  this  ever-present  God 
-will  not  in  some  remote  period  judge  the  world,  but  that  he 
is  incarnate  in  all  worlds,  and  in  the  self-executive  laws  that 
pertain  to  the  physical  and  moral  universe.  Accordingly,  to 
the  enlightened  Buddhist,  life  is  a sowing  and  a reaping — a 
measureless  series  of  causes  and  effects — of  sins  and  punish- 
ments, until  the  attainment  of  Nirvana.  Then  it  is  soul-life, 
in  endless  unfoldment. 

There  has  been  much  useless,  if  not  really  idle  talk  as  to 
“what  Buddha  meant,  and  what  modem  Buddhists  still 
mean,  by  entrance  into  Nirvana.  What  I have  to  say  upon 
this  matter  is  not  from  prejudice ; nor  is  it  gathered  from 


9 


the  booked  sayings  and  missionary  fragments  so  often 
referred  to  in  current  literature ; but  rather  from  inquiries  in 
the  homes,  the  temples,  and  the  colleges  of  the  priests.  It 
seems  a little  difficult  for  missionaries  to  see  the  bright  and 
beautiful  side  of  what  they  denominate  “ heathenism.”  That 
it  has  its  excrescences  and  superstitions  I freely  admit ; and 
may  not  the  same  be  said  of  all  the  great  religions  of  the 
world.  So  far  as  missionaries  teach  the  people  of  the  East 
the  English  language ; so  far  as  they  instruct  them  in  the 
arts  and  sciences,  and  encoiirage  secular  education  generally, 
they  do  great  good ; but  in  matters  of  religion  they  have 
nothing  neio  to  take  the  Orientals  that  is  true. 

I have  talked  personally  with  scores  of  learned  Buddhist 
priests  in  Ceylon,  China,  and  other  Eastern  countries ; and 
with  a single  exception,  they  assured  me  that  entrance  into 
Nirvana  was  emancipation  from  pains,  sorrows,  and  dis- 
appointments, final  releaSb  from  re-births  and  a sweet, 
divine,  yet  conscious  repose  that  no  language  can  fully 
express.  And  this  one  priest  who  took  a different  view,  did 
not  believe  in  the  soul’s  absolute  annihilation,  but  rather  in 
its  subjective,  unconscious  existence — something  akin  to  final 
absorption  into  the  unknowable  ! 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  impartial  student  of  the 
Oriental  religions  that  the  aspirations  of  Buddhists,  the 
true  construction  of  their  ancient  writings,  and  the  present 
testimony  of  their  most  learned  priests,  all  go  to  shew  that 
Nirvana  is  not,  in  even  a subordinate  sense,  extinction  of 
conscious  existence ! And  further,  it  is  most  distinctly 
stated  in  the  Buddhist  Scriptures — scriptures  that  may  be 
traced  to  the  age  of  Guatama  Buddha  himself — that  Buddha 
enjoyed  Nirvana  while  yet  in  his  mortal  body ; and  that  he 
appeared  to  his  disciples  in  his  glorified  state  after  his 
physical  dissolution.  To  this  end  Max  Muller  says  : “ If 
we  consider  that  Buddha  himself,  after  he  had  already  seen 
Nirvana,  still  remains  on  earth  until  his  body  falls  a prey  to 
death  ; that  in  the  legends  Buddha  appears  to  his  disciples, 
even  after  his  death ; it  seems  to  me  that  aU  these  circum- 
stances are  hardly  reconcilable  with  the  orthodox  meta- 
physical doctrine  of  Nirvana**  Again,  he  says  : “ Nirvana 


10 


means  tlie  extinction  of  many  things : of  selfishness,  desire, 
and  sin  without  going  so  far  as  the  extinction  of  conscious- 
ness, and  even  existence.” 

In  reviewing  Max  Muller’s  “ Dhammapada,”  James 
D ’Alexis,  F.R.A.S.,  and  Member  of  the  Parliamentary 
Coimcil  of  Ceylon,  after  admitting  that  Guatama  Buddha 
attained  not  only  Buddahood,  but  a foretaste  of  Nirvana 
while  yet  in  his  body,  through  temperance,  self-sacrifice, 
prayer,  and  holy  living,  thus  continues : “ But  the  relative 
happiness  of  the  Buddhist  Nirvana  is  one  which  is  acquired 
in  this  very  life.  He  jv’ho  reaches  the  end  of  births  has 
attained  Nirvana.  He  who  has  received  his  last  body,  and 
is  yet  alive,  has  attained  Nirvana.  These  and  numerous 
other  texts  clearly  shew  that  man  attains  Nirvana  in  this 
very  Hfe.”  And  so  a similar  class  of  texts  in  the  New 
Testament  shew  that  Nirvana — eternal  hfe,  that  is, 
spiritual  life — is  to  be  attained  in  a degree  and  largely 
enjoyed  in  this  present  world.  Such  is  the  import  of  these 
Biblical  passages : “ And  this  is  hfe  eternal “ I am  the 
resurrection  and  the  hfe “Walk  in  the  spirit;”  “Be  of 
good  cheer,  I have  overcome  the  world.”  That  rehgious 
body  known  in  America  as  Shakers,  and  who  in  doctrines 
and  practices  more  nearly  resemble  the  Buddhists  than  any 
other  class  of  rehgionists,  denominate  this  Nirvana-life,  the 
resui’rection-hfe.  It  is  the  calm,  serene  hfe  of  the  soul, 
virtually  hfted  out  of,  and  liAung  above  the  plane  of  the 
carnal  nature  and  the  earthly  passions.  It  is  spiritual 
emancipation  and  victory ! 

Buddha,  speaking  of  a Rahan  named  Tharnula,  said  “ he 
had  conquered  aU  his  passions,  and  attained  the  state  of 
Nirvana.” 

When  a Buddhist,  through  aspiration  and  effort,  has 
attained  a very  high  degree  of  spirituahty,  he  is  considered  a 
Hahat.  And  these  Rahats,  by  dieting,  by  fasting,  and 
prayer,  become  so  spiritual,  so  ethereal  that  they  can  rise  in 
the  air,  control  to  some  degree  the  elements,  and  can  even 
become  invisible,  or  vanish  from  sight,  as  did  Jesus  when 
walking  upon  earth  so  many  days  in  his  spiritually- 
materialised  body. 


11 


Nagasena,  a Buddliist  missionary  before  tbe  Cbristian 
era,  said  : is' tbe  divine  rest;  the  destroying  of 

the  infinite  sorrow  of  the  world,  the  abode  of  abodes  that 
cannot  be  explained.” 

And  Wong-Chin-Fu,  a Chinese  scholar  and  Buddhist, 
who  has  been  recently  travelling  in  America,  remarked 
repeatedly : “ By  Nirvana  we  all  understand  a final  re- 
union with  Q-od,  coincident  with  the  perfection  of  the  human 
spirit  by  its  ultimate  disembarrassment  of  matter.  It  is  the 
very  opposite  oi  personal  annihilation^' 

In  the  opinion  of  all  thoughtful  Buddhists,  Nirvana  is 
to  be  obtained  only  through  struggle,  self-denial,  renuncia- 
tion of  worldly  pleasures,  release  from  selfish  entanglements, 
abstemious  living,  holy  aspiration,  and  a sweet  trust  in  the 
illimitable,  ineffable  Oversoul  of  the  Universe.  And  it  con- 
sists in  the  fruition  of  all  hopes,  the  realisation  of  all 
enchanting  dreams,  the  fulfilment  of  all  divine  prophecies, 
the  eternal  becoming,  the  fadeless  glory  of  a conscious 
immortality  I 

THE  SAfIRIFICIAL  ATONEMENT. 

The  great  system  of  Buddhism  knows  nothing  of  a 
crucified  Saviour — nothing  of  salvation  through  atoning 
blood.  Its  basic  foundation  rests  upon  the  immutable 
principle  of  cause  and  effect.  Sin  and  punishment,  virtue 
and  happiness  are  inseparably  connected,  according  to  the 
doctrines  of  Gruatama  Buddha.  Listen  : — 

“ Sin  will  come  back  upon  tbe  sinful,  like  fine  dust  thrown 
against  the  wind.” 

“ An  evil  deed  does  not  turn  suddenly  like  milk;  but  smouldering, 
it  follows  the  fool,  like  fire  covered  by  ashes.” 

“ Thyself  is  its  own  defence,  its  own  refuge  ; it  atones  for  its  own 
sins  ; none  can  purify  another.  ” 

“ All  we  are  is  the  result  of  what  we  have  thought.  If  a man 
speaks  or  acts  with  evil  thoughts,  pain  follows,  as  the  wheel  the  foot 
of  him  who  draws  the  carriage.” 

“The  virtuous  man  rejoices  in  this  world,  and  he  will  rejoice  in 
the  next ; in  both  worlds  has  he  joy.  He  rejoices,  he  exults,  seeing 
the  purity  of  his  deed.” 

“ These  wise  people,  meditative,  steady,  always  possessed  of 
strong  powers,  attain  to  Nirvana,  the  highest  felicity  !” 


12 


In  tlie  “ Indian  Saint ; or  Buddha  and  Buddhism,”  a 
most  excellent  volume  by  C.  D.  B.  M*ills,  the  author  declares 
that  “ There  is  no  doctrine  of  commercial  substitution  here, 
nor  a shade  of  our  Western  dream  of  atonement  by  vicarious 
blood.”  He  further  says  that  *•  Spence  Hardy,  a Wesleyan 
missionary,  many  years  resident  in  Ceylon,  finds  this  one  of 
the  most  hopeless  things  in  the  prospect  regarding  the  con- 
version of  the  Buddhists ; they  know  notliing  of  the 
salvation  by  blood  ; it  is  so  foreign  to  their  entire  system  of 
religion  that  there  is  found  no  place  in  the  Oriental  mind 
wherein  to  graft  such  a conception.  The  Buddhist  knows 
nothing  of  an  atonement.” 

THE  MORAL  INFLTJEXCE  OP  BUDDHISM. 

The  tone  of  morality  is  higher,  and  the  practice  of 
charitable  deeds  far  more  prevalent  in  Buddhist  than  in 
Christian  countries.  This  will  be  conceded  by  every  unpre- 
judiced traveller,  and  by  every  candid  and  trustworthy 
foreign  resident  of  Ceylon,  Siam,  China,  and  the  East. 
Only  last  week  a bull-fight  was  indulged  in  at  Madrid,  in 
honour  of  the  marriage  festival  of  the  King  and  Queen. 
And  Spain,  remember,  is  a Christian  country.  Magnificent 
cathedrals  dot  the  great  cities,  and  costly  churches  crown  the 
hill-tops.  The  cross  is  the  dominant  symbol,  and  Mass  is 
the  solemn  song,  and  the  ever-recurring  echo  of  the  passing 
years.  And  yet  the  nobility — the  elite,  even  the  ladies,  of 
the  realm,  assemble  to  witness  a brutal  bull-fight ; where 
Christian  men,  dressed  like  savages,  shake  crimson  rags  at 
bulls  to  madden  them  for  the  bloody  fray ! And  when 
these  poor  animals’  sides  were  pierced  with  flaming  goads ; 
when  the  hides  of  the  horses  were  ripped  and  torn ; when 
the  men  in  the  ring  were  bruised  and  wounded ; and  when 
pools  of  blood  covered  the  ground,  these  ladies — the  Christian 
ladies  of  Eoman  Catholic  Spain — cheered  and  waved  their 
handkerchiefs — so  say  the  Spanish  journals  ! It  is  sad  to 
write,  though  true,  that  buU-fights,  dog-fights,  and  men- 
fights — the  latter  under  the  name  of  war — indicate  the 
status  of  Christian  morals  in  this  evening-time  of  the  nine- 
teenth century. 


13 


Tho  columns  of  the  English  newspapers  are  often  crowded 
with  records  of  drunkenness,  robberies,  midnight  fightings, 
and  high-handed  murders.  The  London  Times,  treating  of 
a terrible  murder  that  transpired  a few  days  ago  in  the  West 
End,  says : — 

“ The  circumstances,  as  we  have  them  set  out  palpably 
before  us,  are  a miserable  revelation  of  the  brutality  of  which 
men  and  women  Living  around  us  are  capable.” 

In  America,  vith  its  60,000  clergymen,  milKons  of 
Bibles,  and  salaried  revivalists,  the  state  of  morals  is  no 
better.  Of  this  the  public  journals  offer  abundant  proof. 
The  editor  of  the  Sornellsville  Times  declares  that — 

“ The  records  of  the  past  have  never  presented  a more 
fearful  and  corrupt  state  of  society  than  now  exists  through^ 
out  the  United  States.  The  newspapers  from  every  quarter 
are  becoming  more  and  more  loaded  with  the  records  of 
crime.” 

The  Scientific  American  says 

“ It  is  admitted  by  all  parties  that  crimes  of  the  most 
outrageous  and  unprecedented  character  abound  throughout 
the  cormtry  to  a degree  wholly  unparalleled.” 

Though  I have  travelled  twice  around  the  world 
spending  days  in  Buddhist  temples,  months  in  the  homes  of 
Brahmans  and  Buddhists,  and  years  in  their  countries,  I 
never  saw  a Buddhist  in  a state  of  intoxication.  Murder  is 
comparatively  unknown ; theft  is  uncommon  ; and  profanity 
prevails  only  so  far  as  Oriental  people  have  mingled  with  the 
Christian  nations  of  the  West.  To  this  end,  Wong-Chin-fu 
a Chinese  orator  and  Buddhist,  said,  when  lecturing  in 
Chicago,  U.S.A. — 

“ I challenge  any  man  to  say  that  he  ever  heard  a 
Chinese  man,  woman,  or  child,  take  the  name  of  Almighty 
God  in  vain,  unless  it  was  in  the  English  language  after  he 
had  become  demoralised.” 

Bishop  Bigandet  testifies  not  only  to  the  general  kind- 
heartedness,  chastity,  and  morality  of  Buddhists,  but  to  the 
ameliorating  influences  of  the  system  upon  woman.  Their 


14 


religion  ignores  caste,  and  they  naturally  accept  the  theory 
that  we  are  all  brothers.  Their  hearts  seem  full  of  tender- 
ness. They  carefully  care  for  the  sick  and  the  aged. 
Keverenee  and  love  for  parents  is  proverbial  in  the  East. 

The  following  constitutes  the  ethical  code,  or  the  five 
great  commandments  of  the  Buddhists: — 

I.  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

II.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

III.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

IV.  Thou  shalt  not  speak  untruths. 

V.  Thou  shalt  not  take  any  intoxicating  drink. 

This  moral  code  has  been  amplified  in  some  of  the 
Buddhist  countries,  the  commandments  being  increased  to 
ten  in  number.  Substantially  embodying  the  five,  and 
adding  others  from  their  sacred  canon,  they  stand  thus  : — 

I.  Thou  shalt  kill  no  animal  whatever,  from  the 
meanest  insect  up  to  man. 

II.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

III.  Thou  shalt  not  violate  the  wife  of  another. 

IV.  Thou  shalt  speak  no  word  that  is  false. 

V.  Thou  shalt  not  drink  wine,  nor  anything  that 
may  intoxicate. 

VI.  Thou  shalt  avoid  all  anger,  hatred,  and  bitter 

language. 

VII.  Thou  shalt  not  indulge  in  idle  and  vain  talk. 

VIII.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour’s  goods. 

IX.  Thou  shalt  not  harbour  envy,  nor  pride,  nor 
revenge,  nor  malice,  nor  the  desire  of  thy 
neighbour’s  death  or  misfortune. 

X.  Thou  shalt  not  follow  the  doctrines  of  false  gods. 

Those  who  keep  these  commandments  ; who  subdue  their 
passions  ; who  strive  to  live  up  to  their  divinest  ideal ; who 
through  struggle  conquer  their  selfishness,  and  hold  the 
perfect  mastery  over  the  lower  earthly  self,  are  on  the  way 
to  Nirvana — the  rest  of  Buddha. 


15 


“ The  rest  of  Boodh  ! The  starry  rest  of  Boodh  t 
The  lore  of  old,  and  the  ancestral  feud, 

Shall  move  no  more,  forgotten  and  forgiven, 

In  the  repose  of  Heaven. 

The  stars  may  fall ; the  sun  be  turned  to  blood  ; 

The  earth  be  shrouded  in  a fiery  flood  ; 

The  heavens  be  rolled  together  as  a scroll ; 

The  form  and  face  of  nature  be  renewed  ; 

Stdl  shall  abide  the  all-pervading  Soul, 

And  still  the  calm  of  those  who  rest  in  Boodh.” 

WUAT  DO  BUDDHISTS  EAT? — AND  WHAT  ARE  THEIB 
AIMS  OF  LIFE  ? 

The  word  Buddha  signifies  enlightened — divinely 
illumined.  Though  Guatama  Buddha  sought  to  induce 
others  to  become  self-sacrificing  and  pure,  that  thetj  might 
also  become  Buddhas,  he  professed  no  infallible  leadership. 
On  the  contrary,  choosing  a peaceful  life  of  self-denial,  he 
hid  himself  behind  the  doctrines  and  truths  he  uttered.  And 
this  has  ever  been  my  aim,  whether  in  my  native  country,  or 
afar  in  foreign  lands.  It  has  also  been  the  noble  aim  of  my 
co-workers  in  this  reconstructive  era  of  angel  ministrants. 
Inspirational  truths,  moral  conquests,  and  impersonal  prin- 
ciples are  the  true  leaders  that  lead  men  up  on  to  the 
mountain  tops  of  holiness  and  harmony.  The  truths 

enunciated  by  that  great  Indian  sage,  Buddha,  have  led 
millions  in  the  way  of  the  better  life. 

Rice  is  the  great  staple  of  food  in  all  Buddhist  countries ; 
and  the  general  teachings  of  Buddhist  priests  are  in  favour 
of  vegetables,  grains,  and  fruits,  as  food.  Though  some  of 
these  religionists  are  fiesh-eating  in  a moderate  way,  their 
strictest  and  holiest  men,  their  consecrated  o)ies,  never  touch 
nor  taste  of  animal  food.  The  priests  usually  wear  plain 
yellow  robes  ; and,  as  they  live  upon  alms,  they  are  compelled 
to  take  what  is  given  them ; and  this  sometimes  consists  in 
part  of  animal  food.  They  eat  it  not  from  choice,  but  rather 
from  necessity.  If  the  animal  was  killed  especially  for  them 
they  would  not  taste  it. 

The  whole  spirit  of  Buddhism  is  against  flesh-eating, 
because  all  life  is  sacred,  because  of  the  pain  produced  in 


16 


killing  animals,  and  because  eating  animal  food  tends  to 
grossness  of  body  and  stupidity  of  mind.  Buddhists  use  no 
strong  drinks  or  liquors.  The  priests  generally  eat  but  one 
meal  a day,  and  that  in  the  forenoon.  Should  they  eat  two, 
they  would  partake  of  them  both  before  the  sun  had  passed  the 
noon-day  meridian.  The  afternoons  and  evenings  they 
devote  to  works  of  charity,  to  prayer,  and  meditation. 

THE  DEATH  OF  GUATAMA  BUDDHA. 

The  general  testimony  of  scholars,  as  well  as  the  histories 
of  the  Siamese,  Birmese,  and  Singhalese,  unite  in  the  opinion 
that  Sakya-Muni  Gluatama  Buddha  died  a natural  death,  at 
the  age  of  about  eighty  years,  the  event  occurring  during  the 
reign  of  Adzatathat.  Ills  body,  on  the  eighth  day  after  its 
death,  was  burned,  and  during  the  time  of  the  cremation 
the  “ nats,”  exalted  intelligences  in  the  heavenly  world,  hover- 
ing over  the  corpse,  discoursed  sweet  music,  and  threw  down 
upon  the  assei  bl , je  delicious  perfumes. 

According  to  the  books  and  the  legends  of  the  East, 
Buddha  not  only  wrought  such  marvellous  works  as  healing 
the  sick  by  a single  touch,  controlling  the  elements,  sailing 
through  the  air  attended  by  his  Mahans,  and  visiting  other 
worlds,  but  he  foresaw  and  prophetically  announced  his 
approaching  end.  Accordingly,  Bishop  Bigandet,  who  fre- 
quently speaks  of  Buddha’s  entering  into  a state  of  trance, 
informs  us  that  when  the  great  sage,  weary  and  worn,  had 
reached  Welnwa  he  was  taken  with  a painful  sickness.  But 
says  the  Bishop,  “ knowing  that  this  was  not  the  place  he 
was  to  select  for  his  last  moments,  he  overcame  the  evil 
influences  of  the  illness,  and  entering  soon  into  a state  of 
absolute  trance,  he  remained  there  for  awhile.  Awakening 
from  this  situation,  he  appeared  anew  with  his  usual  state  of 
strength.”*  But  the  infirmities  of  age  were  upon  him. 
And  though  nominally  in  his  body,  he  lived  upon  the  verge 
of  Heaven.  When  sitting  one  day  under  the  sala-trees  to 
give  dying  advice  to  Ananda,  it  was  announced  that 


Bigandet’s  Life  of  Buddha,  p.  261. 


17 


Thoubat  wished  to  see  him.  He  was  admitted  to  Buddha’s 
presence  to  converse  upon  religion.  After  a few  moments, 
as  was  his  custom,  of  quiet  contemplation,  Buddha  said,  “ I 
have  spent  fifty-one  years  following  the  ways  of  Ariahs,  the 
ways  of  self-denial  and  good  works,  observing  the  wheel  of 
the  law.  These  lead  to  Nirvana.  To  follow  the  path  is  to 
become  a Buddha,  and  all  may  become  Buddhas.  For 
twenty-nine  years  up  to  this  moment  I have  striven  to  obtain 
the  supreme  and  perfect  science.  I have  attained  it.  I am 
at  peace.”  Approaching  his  closing  hours  and  calling 
Anauda  and  the  Eahans,  he  said,  “ When  I shall  have  dis- 
appeared from  this  state  of  existence  and  be  no  longer  with 
you,  do  not  believe  that  the  Buddha  has  left  you  and  ceased 
to  dwell  among  you..  .Do  not  think,  therefore,  nor  believe 
that  the  Buddha  has  disappeared,  and  is  no  more  with  you.” 
Ananda  was  Buddha’s  cousin,  and  their  mutual  love  was 
excelled  only  by  that  existing  between  John  and  Jesus.  In 
the  true  harmonial  man,  intellect  and  affections  balance. 
Buddha’s  last  hours  were  spent  in  preaching,  and  in  counselling 
his  friends  upon  those  great  spiritual  themes  that  had  oc- 
cupied the  prime  and  the  setting  years  of  his  bfe.  He  passed 
away  in  the  morning — a morning  whose  sun  can  know  no 
setting. 


2 


id 


TB[E  BUDDHIST  CONTROVEBST. 

As  HELD  AT  PaNTURA,  NEAR  CoLOMBO,  CeYLON, 

On  Tuesday,  2Qth  August,  1873. 


Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  every  day  village  life  in 
Ceylon  can  form  no  idea  of  the  appearance  Pantura  presented 
on  the  occasion  of  the  great  controversy  between  the  Protes- 
tants and  Buddhists.  The  time  appointed  for  commencing  the 
discussion  was  eight  o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  long  before 
that  hour  thousands  of  natives  were  seen  wending  their  way, 
attired  in  their  gayest  holiday  suits,  into  the  large  enclosure 
in  which  stood  the  ample  bungalow  where  the  adversaries  were 
to  meet.  By  seven  the  green  was  one  sea  of  heads.  Each 
district  had  sent  its  quota  of  villagers,  and  Colombo  was 
represented  by  a few  intellectual  looking,  silk-garbed  young 
Singhalese,  determined  to  give  up  all  for  the  great  champion 
of  Buddhism — Migettuwatte. 

The  Protestant  party  too  was  very  strong.  From 
Monday,  catechists  and  clergymen  of  every  denomination. 
Baptist,  Wesleyan  and  Church  Missionary,  flocked  from 
various  parts  of  the  Island  into  the  large  house  prepared 
for  them,  one  of  them,  an  Oriental  scholar  of  some 
note,  leaving  the  itinerating  work  in  the  wilds  of 
Anoorajapoora,  to  take  part  in  this  important  discussion,  and 
assist  the  Protestant  spokesman — Rev.  David  Silva.  The 
temporary  building,  the  scene  of  this  polemical  strife,  was  a 
neat  cadjan-roofed  structure  with  a raised  platform,  and 
parted  off  in  the  middle : one  portion  was  occupied  by  the 
Rev.  David  Silva  and  his  party,  and  the  other  by  the  Rev. 
Mohatti watte  Gunanda,  commonlv  known  as  Migettu- 
watte,  and  about  200  priests.  An  attempt  had  been  made  to 


19 


ascertain  the  numerical  strength  of  each  faction,  by  parting 
off  the  compound,  by  a fence  put  up  in  a line  with  the  parti- 
tion of  the  platform  on  which  the  reverend  gentlemen  sat> 
but  the  increasing  numbers  prevented  the  arrangement  being 
carried  out.  The  bungalow  itself  presented  a very  gay  ap- 
pearance ; the  half  of  it  occupied  by  the  Protestant  party  was 
decorated  with  ever-greens,  and  had  a ceiling  and  cloths  on 
the  table  as  white  as  snow.  The  Buddhists,  however,  went  in 
for  more  colour  ; they  had  rich  damask  table  covers,  a ceiling 
which  reminded  one  of  the  tri- colour  flag  of  the  French,  and 
festoonings  of  variegated  hues,  in  addition  to  the  yellow  silk 
or  satin  robes  of  the  priests  themselves.  These  were  not  all. 
A posse  of  the  Ceylon  Police  were  also  there,  officered  by  In- 
spector Ekenayeke,  who  was  in  his  uniform  ; gloved,  belted, 
and  mounted  on  his  noble  steed,  he  was  seen  drilling  a hand- 
ful of  police — some  fourteen  men — and  performing  all  sorts 
of  evolutions  amongst  the  crowds ; but  the  order  and  quiet- 
ness which  prevailed  amongst  the  five  or  six  thousand  men 
were  not  due  to  their  presence,  as  was  evidenced  in  more 
than  one  instance  during  the  meeting. 

All  this,  the  yellow  robed  priests,  the  sable  attire  of  the 
Protestant  clergymen,  the  fantastic  dresses  of  the  immense 
multitude,  the  Inspector  stalking  perfectly  erect  on  the  walk 
lined  on  each  side  by  children  of  all  ages  and  complexions, 
the  slow  murmur  of  human  voices  rising  at  times  like  the 
waves  of  the  ocean,  interspersed  occasionally  by  the  clear 
voices  of  the  ubiquitous  sherbet- vendor,  and  the  roasted  gram 
seller — the  invariable  concomitants  of  a Ceylon  crowd — ren- 
dered the  scene  perfectly  picturesque.  Larger  crowds  may 
often  be  seen  in  very  many  places  in  Europe,  but  surely  such 
a motley  gathering  as  that  which  congregated  on  this  occa- 
sion can  only  be  seen  in  the  East.  Imagine  them  all  seated 
down  and  listening  with  wrapt  attention  to  a yellow  robed 
priest,  holding  forth  from  the  platform  filled  with  Buddhist 
priests,  clergymen,  and  Singhalese  clad  in  their  national  cos- 
tume, and  your  readers  can  form  some  idea — a very  faint  one 
indeed — of  the  heterogeneous  mass  that  revelled  in  a display 
of  Singhalese  eloquence  seldom  heard  in  this  country. 

So  much  for  the  general  appearance  of  the  scene  ; and 

2—2 


20 


now  a few  words  concerning  the  speakers — ^at  least  concerning 
one  of  them — the  Buddhist  priest,  Migettuwatte — as  he  is 
comparatively  unknown  to  very  many.  He  is  a well-made 
man  of  apparently  forty-five  or  fifty  years  of  age,  rather  short, 
very  intellectual  looking,  with  eyes  expressive  of  great  dis- 
trust, and  a smile  which  ’ may  either  mean  profoun  1 
satisfaction  or  supreme  contempt.  Years  ago,  owing  to  some 
differences  with  his  confreres,  he  left  the  sect  to  which  he  be- 
longed, and  established  a temple  of  his  own  at  Cottanchiua  (in 
close  proximity  to  St.  Thomas’  College,  Mutwal,  and  com- 
menced, with  the  aid  of  a well  educated  native,  reg\darly 
delivering  a series  of  lecture?,  and  publishing,  in  a printing 
press  established  by  himself,  pamphlets  against  Christianity. 
The  Wesleyans,  the  only  denomination  who  ever  took  the 
trouble  to  come  forward  in  defence  of  the  religion  of  Christ, 
held  various  meetings,  and  the  addresses  delivered  by  the 
learned  Pali  scholar.  Rev.  Silva,  the  Rev.  Perera  and  Mr. 
John  Perera  at  these  gatherings,  to  the  substance  of  whose 
speeches  permanence  was  subsequently  given  in  the  several 
periodicals  issued  by  this  Society,  terminated  this  quiet  con- 
troversy in  about  the  year  1867.  The  desirability  of  personal 
argument,  however,  occurred  to  the  minds  of  the  disputants 
only  a few  years  afterwards,  and  the  Baddegaine  monster 
meeting,  in  which  the  Church  missionaries  took  a leading 
part,  was  the  first  important  assembly  of  the  kind  ; but  as  on 
that  occasion  the  discussion  was  entirely  carried  on  in  writing, 
no  opportunity  was  afforded  to  the  general  public  of  judging 
of  the  comparative  merits  of  the  leading  men  of  the  two 
parties.  On  the  present  occasion  no  such  conditions  hampered 
the  disputants.  Each  man  was  allowed  one  full  hour  to 
speak,  and  either  to  expose  the  unsoundness  of  the  opponent’s 
ireligion,  or  to  reply  to  his  adversary’s  strictures,  or  both. 

As  the  Rev.  David  Silva  was  the  first  to  make  some  state- 
ments adverse  to  Buddhism,  in  one  of  a series  of  sermons 
which  he  was  then  preaching  in  the  Pantura  Wesleyan 
■Chapel,  to  which  Migettuwatte  took  exception,  and  denounced 
as  untrue,  and  the  accuracy  of  which  he  called  upon  any 
'Christian  to  establish,  he  (Mr.  Silva)  was  asked  to  open  the 
proceedings  by  stating  his  arguments  against  Buddhism. 


21 


The  proceedings  commenced  each  day  at  8 a.m.,  and  closed 
at  10  ; they  were  again  resumed  at  3 in  the  afternoon,  and 
terminated  at  5 o’clock  ; and  as  only  two  days  were  fixed  for 
the  controversy,  each  speaker  thus  had  four  hours.  The 
Buddhist  priest,  it  will  be  seen,  had  by  this  arrangement  the 
privilege  of  having  the  last  word,  no  mean  privilege  on 
any  occasion,  and  to  such  a consummate  master  of  public 
speaking  as  Migettuwatte  the  advantages  of  this  position 
were  incalculable.  The  Christian  advocate — klr.  Silva — is 
a learned  and  fluent  speaker : full  of  Pali  and  Sanscrit,  he 
addressed  the  audience  as  if  each  of  his  hearers  was  a James 
Alwis,  a Louis  Zoysa,  a Childers,  or  a Max  Miiller  ; he  was 
never  at  a loss  for  words,  but  he  forgot  that  the  powers  of 
comprehension  in  his  audience  were  limited,  and  that  the 
abstruse  metaphysics  of  Buddha  and  the  learned  disquisitions 
on  The  Skandh^is,  Ai/'daaas,  and  Patichasamnphada,  in  which, 
he  seems  to  be  quite  at  home,  are  not  adapted  to  the  capacities 
of  his  hearers.  It  is  doubtful  whether  there  were  even  thirty 
out  of  the  five  or  six  thousand  who  were  present  at  this 
controversy  who  even  understood  the  ornate,  though  chaste 
and  classic  language  in  which  his  explanations  of  these 
almost  incompsehensible  subjects  were  couched,  much  less  the 
subjects  themselves.  His  renderings  of  the  Pali  extracts 
may  be  correct,  but  who  was  to  judge  of  this?  Certainly 
not  the  peasantry  who  hailed  from  the  jungles  of  Raigam 
and  Pasdoom  Cories.  Even  the  Christian  party  was  so 
conscious  of  this  error  of  judgment,  if  nothing  more,  that 
they  felt  chagrined ; and  several  gave  vent  to  their  opinions 
in  rather  forcible  language  at  the  apparent  success  of  the 
Buddhists  on  the  first  day.  The  Rev.  Migettuwatte  Grunanda 
is  just  the  reverse  of  this.  He  adapts  himself  to  the 
capabilities  of  his  audience,  and  uses  the  plainest  language 
that  the  proper  treatment  of  the  subjects  will  allow. 
Laughing  at  the  idea  of  Mr.  Silva,  who  in  his  opinion  has 
only  a mere  smattering  of  Pali,  attempting  to  translate 
difficult  extracts  from  works  in  that  language,  he  gets  over 
difficulties  by  arguments  more  plausible  than  sound.  Of  all 
the  weak  points  in  Protestantism,  he  only  touches  upon  those 
which  will  excite  the  ridicule  of  the  people  and  evoke  a smile 


22 


of  derisive  contempt,  and  winds  up  a very  effective  speecli, 
rendered  the  more  attractive  by  motions  made  with  con- 
summate skill,  with  a brilliant  peroration  to  which  the 
“ great  unwashed  ” listen  with  deep  attention,  and  the  accents 
of  which  ring  in  their  ears  for  some  minutes  after  delivery. 

Amongst  those  present  in  the  bungalow  we  noticed  the 
Revs.  S.  Langdon,  R.  Tebb,  S.  Coles,  C.  Jayesinghe, 
P.  Rodrigo,  Jos,  Fernando,  L.  Nathanielsz,  0.  J.  Grunasekara, 
J.  H.  Abayasekara,  II.  Martensz,  H.  Silva,  Juan  de  Silva, 
D.  Fonseka,  S.  Soysa  Modliar,  Dr.  Staples,  Proctors 
Jayesinghe,  Daniel,  and  Alwis,  and  a host  of  catechists 
and  others.  Supporting  the  Buddhist  champion  were  the 
learned  High  Priest  of  Adam’s  Peak,  Sipkaduwe  Sumangaa- 
bhildhana,  Bulatgama  Dhammalankara  Sri  Sumanatissa, 
Dhammalankara,  Subhuti,  Potuwilla  Indajoti,  Koggala 
Sanghatissa,  Amaramoli,  Gunaratana,  and  Weligame  Teru- 
nanses, — the  ablest  Oriental  scholars  amongst  the  Buddhist 
priests  of  this  Island. 

REV.  DAVID  DE  SILVA ’s  FIRST  SPEECH. 

Two  minutes  before  the  appointed  hour,  the  Rev.  0. 
Jayesinghe  (C.M.S.)  stepped  forward,  and  in  a very  few 
words,  begged  the  audience  to  give  that  attention  and  quiet 
hearing  to  what  Rev.  Mr.  Silva  had  to  say  which  the  import- 
ance of  the  matters  he  would  touch  upon  deserved.  In 
behalf  of  the  Buddhists,  the  aged  priest  “ Bulatgame  ’’followed 
in  the  same  strain  ; and  hoped  that  the  speakers  would  not 
forget  to  use  temperate  language  during  the  discussion. 

Precisely  as  the  clock  struck  eight,  the  Rev.  David  de 
Silva  rose  to  address  the  crowd.  He  stated  that  before 
engaging  in  the  controversy  it  was  necessary  to  explain  the 
reasons  for  holding  it.  On  the  12th  of  June  last  he  delivered 
a lecture  in  the  Wesleyan  Chapel,  Pantura,  on  the  teachings 
of  Buddha  with  reference  to  the  human  soul : on  the  19th  of 
the  same  month  it  was  taken  exception  to  by  the  Buddhist 
party,  and  denounced  as  untrue.  The  present  occasion  was, 
therefore,  appointed  to  shew  that  the  doctrine  of  Buddhism 
was  with  reference  to  the  soul,  and  he  hoped  that  the 
Buddhist  party  would,  if  possible,  meet  his  argument 


23 


properly  ; and  that  the  assembly  would  judge  for  themselves 
what  statements  were  to  be  received  as  sound. 

He  stated  that  Buddhism  taught  that  man  had  no  soul, 
and  that  the  identical  man  received  not  the  reward  of  his 
good  or  had  actions. 

According  to  Buddhism,  the  satta,  sentient  beings,  are 
constituted  in  the  five  khandhds,  namely  rupdk-khandha, 
the  organised  body,  wedandk-khandha,  the  sensations,  sannak- 
khandha,  the  perceptions,  sankharak-khandha,  the  reasoning 
powers,  and  wiamnak-khandha,  consciousness.  In  proof  of  this, 
he  quoted  the  following  from  Sanyouttanikaya,  a section  of 
Buddha’s  sermons,  and  from  the  Sutrapitaka. 

Pauehime  khikkhave  khande  desissami  P anchupadanakkh  ne 
ca  tain  siinatha  katameca  bhikkhave  pnncakkiianda  yam  khichi 
hhikhhave  rupani  atitanagata  pachcuppannani  ajjhattain  la 
hahiddha  va  olarikaln  va  sukhumam  m hinain  va  panitam  va  yam 
dure  m santike  va  ayam  vuchehati  rupckkhando. 

Priests,  I will  declare  the  five  Khandhas  and  the  five  Up- 
adanakkhandas  ; hear  it.  Priests,  what  are  the  five  Khandhas? 
Priests,  the  body,  whether  past,  future,  or  present,  whether 
intrinsic  or  foreign,  whether  gross  or  minute,  base  or  excellent, 
remote  or  near,  this  is  called  Bupak-khandha,  the  material 
form. 


Ya  kaci  hhikkhave  vedana 
Ya  kaci  hhikkhave  sanna 
Ya  kaci  bhikkhave  sankhara 
Yan  bhikkhave  vinnanan 
TIpadanakhanda,  cleaving  Khan- 


Yan  kinc. 


So  of  Wedana 
So  of  Sanna 
So  of  Sankhara 
So  of  Winnana 

The  same  is  said  of  the 
dhas. 

Kafame  ca  bhikkhave  pancupanakkhandha  ? 
bhikkhave  rupan  ahtanagata  paccuppanan,  etc.^  etc. 

Priests,  what  are  the  five  Upadanak-khandas?  Priests, 
therupa,  whether  past,  future,  or  present,  whether  intrinsic  or 
extrinsic,  whether  gross  or  minute,  base  or  excellent,  remote 
or  near,  that  is  called  rupapadanak~khanda.  So  of  Wedana, 
Sanna,  Sankhara,  and  Winnana. 

Yehi  keci  bhikkhave  Samana  va  Brahmana  va  aneke  vihitan 
attanan  Samanupassamana  Samanupassanti  Sabbe'te pancupada- 
nakkhandhe  Sammanupassati, 


24 


Priests,  any  priest  or  Bralimin  looking  to  one’s  variegated 
self  sees  anything,  all  that,  are  seen  in  the  five  cleaving 
khandas. 

Also  from  the  following  verse  from  Kawyasekara,  the  best 
Elu  poetical  work  extant. 

Faskanda  sa  kelese 
Duknam  weya  emese 
Fu  weyiii  sanrese. 

Satara  vinnena  namin  mepase. 

The  five  defiled constitute  sorrow;  they  are,  rupa, 
icedana^  sauna,  sankhara,  and  wimiana. 

This  same  individual,  it  was  declared,  was  comprised  in 
the  twelve  Ayatanas,  organs,  Chakkha-yatana,  the  eye,  sota- 
yatana,  the  ear,  ghana-yatana,  the  nose,  Jiwha-yatana,  the 
tongue,  Kaya-yatana,  the  body,  mana  yatana,  the  mind  with 
theii’  haluddha-yatanay  external  aya-tanas,  rupa,  bodily  form, 
sadda,  sound,  gandha,  odour,  rasa,  flavour,  potthahba,  touch, 
and  dhamma,  events.  The  following  extracts  will  bear  out 
this  statement. 

Katamauca  hhikkhave  salayatanan,  cakkhayatanan  sotayata- 
nam  ghanayatanam  jivhayatanam  kayayatanam  manayatanam. 

Priests,  what  are  the  six  ayatanas  ? the  ear,  the  nose, 
the  tongue,  the  body  and  the  mind. 

Sabham  vo  bhikkhave  desissami,  tarn  sunatha.  Kimca  hhik- 
khave sabbam  ? Cakkhunceva  rupanca,  sotanca,  saddanea, 
ghananea,  ghandnea  jivhaca  rasaea,  kayaca  potthabbaca,  manoea, 
dhammaca ; idam  vuccati  bhikkhave  sabbam. 

Priests,  I will  preach  to  you  sabban,  the  whole ; hear  ye, 
priests,  what  is  the  wliole  ? the  eye  and  the  bodily  form,  the 
ear  and  the  sound,  the  nose  and  the  odour,  the  tongue  and 
the  flavour,  the  body  and  the  touch,  the  mind  and  the 
events.  Priests,  this  is  called  the  whole. 

Again  according  to  the  following  authorities,  nama  and 
rupa  constituted  the  whole  man. 

Katamanca  bhikkhave  nama  rupan,  wedana  sanna  cetana 
phasso  manesikaro ; idam  vuccati  namam.  Cattaroca  maha 
bhutaca  catunnaca  maha  bhutanam  upadaya  rupam.  Idain 
vuccati  rupam. 

Priests,  what  are  the  nama  rupa,  wedana,  sensation,  sanna. 


25 


perception,  chef  am,  tlie  faculty  of  reason,  phasso,  toucli,  and 
manasiharo,  mental  objects  ? this  is  called  the  nama.  That 
which  is  compounded  of  these  four  elements  is  called  rupa. 

Tatthn  Icatamam  namam  ? Wedanakhhandho,sannakkdandho, 
saiikharakkhandho  Idam  vuccatinamam. 

What  is  nama  ? sensation,  perception,  and  discrimination. 
Again,  in  the  2Iilindaprasne  it  is  stated. 

Tam  olarikain  etam  rupam,  ye  sukkuma  citta  cetacika 
dhamma  eatam  namam. 

Anything  gross,  that  is  rupa,  anything  small,  the  mind 
and  thoughts,  these  are  nama.  Thus  the  first  four  Khandhas 
evidently  are  mentioned  as  constituting  nama  rupa.  But 
from  the  following  quotation  it  would  appear  that  the  fifth 
khandha,  consciousness,  could  not  exist  independently  of  the 
four  former. 

To  bhikkhace  evam  tadeipja  aham  anna  rupeya  annatha  veda- 
nayn  anmtha  sannaya  annatha  sankharehi  vinnanassa  agatini  va 
gatini  ca  cutini  va  appathne  va  vuddim  va  virulhim  va  vepuUdin 
m pannapcsnamiti  n etam  thanam  vijjati. 

Priests,  if  anyone  say  I will  shew  the  arrival  and  the 
departure,  the  death  and  the  birth,  the  growth,  the  amplifica- 
tion, and  the  full  development  of  ^rinnana,  consciousness 
independent  of  body  or  of  sensation  or  of  perception  or  of 
discrimination,  the  cause  is  not  as  he  states  it,  i.e.,  it  is  not 
true,  thus  shewing  that  consciousness  must  be  included  with 
the  other  four  khandhas. 

Again,  from  the  follovnng  quotations  from  the  comment 
of  Wihhanga  it  would  appear  tliat  all  the  five  khandhas  come 
into  existence  together  and  at  the  same  time ; — 

Gahbha  seyyaka  sattanam  hipatis  patisandhikkhane  pancake 
khandha  apachcha  apure  ekato  pdtuhhavanti. 

Beings  conceived  in  the  womb,  at  the  moment  of  concep- 
tion the  five  khandhas  come  into  existence ; neither  before  nor 
after,  they  come  into  existence  together. 

Evaeme  gabbhaseyyadnan  patisandhikkhandhane  pancak- 
khandha  paripunna  honti. 

Thus,  those  that  are  conceived,  at  the  moment  of  con- 
ception the  five  khandhas  are  perfect. 


26 


And  also  from  tlie  following  verse  from  Kawyasekara. 
Nam  ru  deka  hem 
Neta  an  inujul  hehera 
Pevata  deka  nohera 
Sii/alu  katayutu  vcya  nitora. 

Besides  narna  ruma  there  is  nothing  else  that  constitutes 
the  individual ; by  these  two  in  connection  at  all  times  every- 
thing proper  is  performed. 

Thus  is  proved  that  the  whole  individual  is  constituted 
in  the  five  khandhas,  or  in  the  twelve  ayatanas  or  in  numn 
rupa. 

Now  from  the  following  extracts  it  will  be  seen  that 
Buddha  denies  the  existence  of  a soul  either  in  the  Khandhas 
or  Ayatana. 

Piipam  hhikkhave  anattam,  yadanattam  n’etam  mama  n'eno 
’hamasmin  paneso  attati. 

Organised  form,  Priests,  is  not  self,  that  which  is  not  self 
is  not  mind,  I am  not  that,  that  is,  not  to  me  a soul. 

So  of  Wedana,  Sauna,  Sankhara,  and  Winnana. 

The  same  is  said  of  rupa,  present,  past,  and  future,  etc. 

Yam  kanci  rupam  atitanayata  paccappannam  ajjhattam  vn 
bahiddha  va  olarikam  va  sukhumam  va  hinam  va  panitam  va  yam 
dure  va  santike  va  sahbam  rupam  n'etatn  mama  wV.su  ’hamasrni 
namem  attati  evametam  yathalmtam  sammappanaya  datthabbam. 

The  body,  whether  past,  future,  or  present,  whether 
belonging  to  the  individual  or  to  others,  whether  gross 
or  minute,  base  or  excellent,  remote  or  near,  all  that  body 
is  not  mine,  is  not  myself,  that  is  not  my  soul. 

So  of  Wedana,  Sanna,  Sankhara,  Winnana. 

It  is  also  stated,  as  will  he  seen  from  the  following 
extracts,  that  the  very  cause  of  the  Khandhas  was  soulless 
and  that  there  was  no  soul  to  be  found  : — 

Rupam  hhikkhave  anattamopi  hctu  yopi  paccayo  npassa 
uppadaya  sopi  anattam  anattasambhutam  rupam  kuto  attam- 
bhvissati. 

Priests,  body  is  not  a soul ; if  there  he  any  cause  or 
paccayo  (that  on  account  of  which  the  thing  is  produced) 
for  the  production  of  the  body,  that  too  is  soulless ; when 
the  body  is  soulless  whence  can  there  be  a soul  ? ’ 


27 


So  oiWedana,  Sanna,  SanMiara,  Winnana. 

The  same  is  stated  respecting  the  ayatanas  ; they  are  soul- 
less, and  in  them  there  was  no  soul  to  be  found.  The 
following  texts  will  bear  out  this  statement. 

Cakkhum  hhikkhave  anattam  yopi  hetu  yopi paccaya  cakhhitssa 
uppaclaya  sopi  anattam  anattasambhutam  hikkhave  cakkhum  kuto 
uttam  bliavksati. 

Priests,  the  eye  is  not  a soul ; if  there  be  any  cause  or 
sequence  for  the  production  of  the  eye,  that  too  is  soulless ; 
when  the  eye  is  soulless  whence  can  there  be  a soul  ? 

So  of  sota,  ear,  ghana,  nose,  jivha,  tongue,  kaya,  figure, 
mano,  mind. 

In  defining  death,  it  is  stated— 

Katamanca  bhikkhave  maranam  ? Yam  tesam  tesam  sattanam 
tamha  tamha  satta  nikaya  cuti  cavanta  bhedo  antaradhanam 
maccu  maranam  kalakiriya  khandhanam  bhedo,  kalebarassa 
nikkhepo.  Idam  vuccati  maranan. 

Priests,  what  is  death  ? It  is  the  cessation  of  existence  in 
each  state,  the  breaking  up  of  the  frame,  the  vanishing  of  its 
parts,  the  destruction  of  the  body,  decease,  the  breaking  up 
of  the  Khandhas,  the  throwing  away  of  the  lifeless  frame — 
this  is  death. 

In  the  advice  given  by  Buddha  to  the  priests  to  cast  away 
all  desire  the  following  passage  occurs  : — 

Yo  bhikkhave  rupaamin  chandarago  tarn pajahatha,  evam  tarn 
ritpam  pahinam  bhavissati  iicchinna  mulam  talavatthu  katam 
anabhava  katam  ayatim  anuppada  dhammani. 

Priests,  put  off  attachment  to  the  body  ; thus  that  material 
form  will  cease  to  be,  will  be  cut  up  by  the  roots,  be  eradi- 
cated, be  reduced  to  non-existence,  prevent  future  birth. 

In  the  Mahapadhana  siittam  it  is  stated — 

Yam  kind  samudaya  dhammam  tarn  nirodha  dhammam  ; that 
which  comes  into  existence  wiU  cease  to  be. 

From  these  authorities  it  is  clear  that  Buddhism  teaches 
that  everything  which  constitutes  man  will  cease  to  be  at 
death,  and  that  no  immortal  soul  existed  therein,  and  if  then 
man  was  only  a brute  what  need  had  he  of  a rehgion  ? can 
he  possess  any  moral  principle  ? 

Thus  if  the  Khandhai  Ayatanas,  and  Nama  and  Rapa  con- 


28 


Btituted  the  whole  of  man,  and  if  Buddha  himself  denied  the 
existence  of  Atnia  in  either  of  these  constituents,  and  dis- 
tinctly declared  that  these  would  be  completely  broken  up, 
it  followed  that  there  was  no  Atnia  or  soul,  which  survived 
the  body,  but  that  the  human  being  was  on  a par  with  tiie 
frog,  pig,  or  any  other  member  of  the  brute  creation.  If  this 
were  so,  and  nothing  remained  of  the  present  man,  any  being 
which  would  exist  hereafter  and  sutfer  punisliment  or  reap 
the  rewards  for  the  actions  committed  in  this  world,  which 
the  Buddhists  say  would  be  the  case,  must  be  a different 
being,  and  could  not  by  any  possibility  be  the  identical 
IDerson  who  committed  those  actions.  And  this  led  the 
learned  lecturer  to  the  second  point  on  which  he  proposed  to 
speak,  but  before  entering  it,  he  would  quote  a few  authorities 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  shew  his  hearers  why  the 
Christians  believed  in  the  existence  of  a soul.  The  attempt 
made  by  the  Buddhists  to  controvert  these  distinct  declara- 
tions, contained  in  the  Bible,  with  reference  to  tlie  soul, 
was  as  futile  and  silly  as  the  attempt  of  a small  child  to 
conceal  the  bright  rays  of  the  sun  by  the  aid  of  a lighted 
candle.  lie  would  now  refer  them  to  the  following 
passages  from  “ Giod’s  Bible,”  wliich  he  likened  unto  the 
noon-day  sun. 

And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Verily  I say  unto  thee,  To-day 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise.  Luke  xxiii.  43. 

And  he  kneeled  down,  and  cried  with  a loud  voice,  T/ord, 
lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge.  And  when  he  had  said  this, 
he  fell  asleep.  Acts  vii.  60. 

For  I verily,  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit, 
ha\'e  judged  already,  as  though  I were  present,  concerning 
him  that  hath  so  done  this  deed.  1 Cor.  v.  3. 

And  now  with  reference  to  the  second  point,  that  it  was 
not  the  identical  person  who  committed  good  or  bad  that 
received  the  reward  or  suffered  punishment,  he  would  quote 
the  following  passages  from  Saniyntta  nikaya. 

Khmiikho  bho  Gofamd  so  karoti  so  patisaimediyatiili  so 
karofi  so  patisanvcdenatiti  Bralnnana,  ayam  eko  anto. 

What  Gotama  (asks  a Brahmin)  does  he  who  commits 
the  action  reap  its  reward.  Brahmin  the  thought  that  he 


29 


who  commits  the  action  reaping  its  reward  is  one  extreme 
{i.e.y  a mistake). 

Again,  Xing  Milhida  asked  Nagasena  the  following 
question : — 

Atthi  Txoci  satto  imamha  kaya  annani  mnkamatiti? 

Is  there  any  being  who  transmigrates  from  this  body 
to  another  body?  to  which  Priest  Nagasena  gave  this 
reply 

Nahi  malm  raja,  imena  pana  malm  raja  namanipe>m  kam- 
mam  karoti  soblmnam  va  papakam  va  ; tena  kammena  annam 
namurupam  patisandaliatiti. 

No,  great  King,  by  these  nama  and  rupa  good  or  evil 
actions  are  performed,  and  in  consequence  of  these  actions 
another  nama  and  rnpa  is  conceived. 

Again,  the  following  passages  occurred  in  one  of  the 
comments : — 

Atita  hhave  kamma  paccayena  nibbatta  te  khandlm  tattheva 
nruddlm  atita  hhavato  imam  blmvam  agato  eka  dlmmmampi 
nattlii. 

Those  Klmndlms  which  came  into  existence  in  consequence 
of  actions  in  a previous  state  of  existence,  there  itself  they 
ceased  to  be.  There  is  not  one  thing  which  has  come  to  this 
state  of  existence  from  the  past  state. 

Sattena  kata  ka,unia  paccaya  nublmvena  anapac  chinna  kilesa 
bala  vinamitam  annam  namarupam  patublmvati. 

“In  consequence  of  the  power  of  actions  performed  by 
beings  bent  by  the  influence  of  successive  defilement  a 
different  nama  rnpa  comes  into  existence.” 

Again,  defining  what  birth  was,  in  various  parts  of 
Buddhist  literature  there  are  statements  such  as  the 
following : — 

Katamanca  bliikklmva  jati ! Yaca  tesam  tesam  sattanam 
tamhi  tamhi  satta  nikaye  sanjati  okkanti  abliinnibbatti  klmndlm- 
nampatublmvo  ayatananampatilablio  ayam  vuccati  bhikklmve  jati. 

Priests,  what  is  birth  ? It  is  the  production,  the  concep- 
tion, coming  into  existence  in  such  and  such  state,  the 
appearance  of  the  Klmndlms,  and  the  development  oi 
Ayatanas.  Priests,  this  is  called  birth. 

Speaking  of  Klmndhas  and  Ayatanas,  it  is  said : — • 


30 


TJppaUilikhane  patuhhavanti — come  into  existence  at  the 
very  moment  birth  takes  place. 

He  asked  whether  this,  being  the  proper  Buddhist  doctrine 
as  expounded  in  their  books,  it  was  likely  that  the  actions  of 
any  human  being  would  be  influenced  by  it.  If  the  doctrine 
were  true,  it  was  clear  that  those  who  performed  meritorious 
actions  would  not  be  benefited,  for  even  supposing  that  there 
were  any  rewards,  the  doer  would  not  reap  them  but  another. 
Besides,  was  it  at  all  to  be  expected  that  a man  who  believes 
his  end  to  be  similar  to  that  of  a dog,  or  a frog,  would  care 
what  actions  he  committed  ? Is  not  the  greatest  inducement 
held  out  to  the  murderer,  the  thief,  and  the  voluptuary  to 
carry  on  their  unlawful  pursuits  ? What  mattered  it  to  them 
how  evil  their  actions  were  ? They  would  not  be  punished 
in  a futiire  life  ; some  other  beings  would  be  ; but  how  did 
that  in  any  way  affect  them  ? Within  man  there  is  a deep- 
rooted  conviction  that  he  will  have  to  suffer  for  his  mis-deeds. 
This  conviction,  or  conscience,  was  not  confined  to  a single 
individual,  or  a particular  race  or  class  of  men ; it  was  a 
general  feeling,  and  does  not  this  doctrine  of  Buddha  belie 
the  convictions  implanted  in  the  heart  of  every  man  ? nay, 
in  the  heart  of  every  Buddhist  ? Besides,  was  it  possible  to 
imagine  a dogma  more  prolific  of  baneful  influences  or  a 
greater  incentive  to  evil  than  this  held  by  the  Buddhists,  not 
to  mention  how  iniquitous  and  contrary  to  all  principles  of 
justice  it  was  to  punish  one  for  the  misconduct  of  another. 
What  viUain  will  not  exult  in  the  idea  that  he  is  not  to 
suffer  for  what  he  does  in  this  life ! He  would  challenge  the 
opposite  party  to  adduce  a single  passage  where  this  personal 
punishment  was  even  declared : if  no  authority  existed  where 
this  doctrine  was  plainly  stated,  he  would,  as  an  indulgence, 
allow  them  to  point  out  any  passage  from  which  this  most 
salutary  doctrine  could  even  be  inferred.  He  knew  it  was 
impossible.  In  order  to  mislead  the  ignorant,  the  opposite 
party  might  produce  metaphors,  but  in  a logical  argument 
metaphors  are  of  no  weight,  and  the  metaphors  when  intro- 
duced would,  he  was  sure,  be  found  to  prove  nothing.  The 
identical  wrong-doer,  according  to  the  Buddhists,  never 
suffered  for  his  misdeeds.  They  denied  the  existence  of  an 


31 


Atma  (soul),  and  botli  these  doctrines  only  shewed  that  no 
religion  ever  held  out  greater  inducements  to  the  unrighteous 
than  Buddhism  did.  He  then  lastly  implored  the  audience, 
in  tire  name  of  the  Almighty,  to  carefully  and  without 
prejudice  weigh  the  replies  that  would  he  tendered,  and  to 
hold  fast,  even  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  that  which  was  true. 
Before  closing,  he  thanked  the  audience — fully  5,000  men — 
for  the  quiet  and  attentive  manner  in  which  they  had  listened 
to  him. 


REV.  MIGETTUWATTe’s  FIRST  SPEECH  IN  REPLY. 

The  Priest  Migettuwatte  {2Iohattiwatte  Gmanda)  then 
commenced  his  reply.  He  said  that  much  penetration  was 
not  needed  to  form  a correct  opinion  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Silva’s 
lecture  to  which  they  had  all  listened.  It  was  a very  desultory 
and  rambling  speech,  which  he  was  certain  nobody  under- 
stood. In  his  exposition  of  the  Pali  extracts,  made  from 
Buddha’s  discourses,  he  was  not  more  successful,  because  he 
completely  failed  to  convey  to  those  present  the  correct 
meaning  in  intelligible  language.  A very  few  of  his  audience, 
however,  doubtless  perceived  that  the  main  argument  of  the 
lecture  was  to  shew  that  because  at  a human  being’s  death 
here,  his  Pamaskhandha  is  completely  destroyed,  therefore 
the  being  who  was  produced  from  it  in  another  world  was  a 
wholly  different  being.  This  was  not  so.  Though  the  being 
was  not  the  same,  it  was  not  a different  one,  as  he  would 
presently  shew.  Atma  (the  soul,  the  living  principle)  was 
not  an  easy  subject  to  explain,  but  because  it  was  so  abstruse 
it  did  not  follow  that  its  existence  was  denied.  Of  course 
they  did  not  agree  with  the  Christians’  view  of  the  soul : 
this  declared  that  without  any  change  man’s  soul  goes  to  a 
state  of  misery  or  bliss  according  to  its  deserts  ; if  so,  it  must 
be  the  human  soul  with  all  its  imperfections  that  goes  to 
heaven.  For  instance,  when  the  Rev.  Mr.  Silva  leaves 
Pantura  for  Wellawatta  he  does  not  become  a different 
person ; it  is  the  same  clergyman,  and  he  is  known  by  the 
same  name  ; and  if  the  human  Atma  goes  to  heaven  that  Atma 
must  be  human  still,  and  the  being  who  enjoys  bhss — a man  I 


32 


And  now  it  l»eiioved  him  to  explain  this  important  doctrine 
of  Pancaslxhandha,  in  the  expounding  of  which  the  rev. 
gentleman,  owing  to  his  superficial  knowledge  of  Pali,  had 
made  such  mistakes. 

In  doing  so,  he  would  take  good,  care  not  to  use  language 
that  seemed  like  Latin  and  Greek  to  the  multitude  ; and  he 
left  to  his  learned  coadjutors  to  judge  of  the  correctness  of 
his  interpretation  of  these  doctrines.  The  great  Buddha’s 
last  discourse,  in  which  man’s  nature  was  explained,  was  not 
one  that  could  he  comprehended  by  everybody,  and  much 
less  by  a clergyman  of  Xlr.  Silva’s  linguistic  attainments.  It 
was  perfectly  true,  according  to  Buddhist  doctrines,  to  say 
that  at  man’s  death  no  portion  of  Pancaskhandha  was  trans- 
ferred to  another  world ; yet  the  being  who  was  produced  at 
death  in  consequence  of  existence  here  was  not  a different 
being.  This  was  not  a new  interpretation  of  the  doctrine. 
He  could  assure  his  hearers  that  this  construction  was 
admitted  to  be  the  correct  and  proper  one  at  several  meetings, 
held  hundreds  of  years  ago  for  the  very  purpose,  in  which 
tlie  most  erudite  of  the  age  took  part,  whose  knowledge  of 
Pah,  it  was  needless  to  say,  was  far  superior  to  that  of  the 
rev.  gentleman  who  had  just  spoken.  The  whole  of  Buddha’s 
doctrines  were  written  in  Pali,  and  no  person  having  an 
imperfect  knowledge  of  that  language  could  he  expected  to 
understand  those  abstruse  sayings.  He  would  now  shew  the 
extent  of  the  rev.  gentleman’s  Pali  attainments,  and 
fortunately  for  him,  he  had  in  his  possession  a little  publication 
which  greatly  facilitated  this  task.  This  brochure,  entitled 
Granthnaekara,  was  published  by  Mr.  Silva,  and  in  it  occurs  a 
short  Pali  verse  of  four  hues  giving  the  substance  of  a passage 
in  the  Xew  Testament,  of  which  the  first  line  even  contains 
several  egregious  blunders.  For  instance,  in  the  sentence 
commencing  with  “ Tava  namo pavitht ho  liothu'”  it  was  quite 
erroneous  to  use  the  aspirate  paviththo.  There  was  no  such 
pavithfho  in  the  Pali  language;  it  ought  to  have 
been  pavitto,  and  in  Tam  namo  it  was  equally  wrong  to  have 
used  the  masculine  termination.  If  the  rev.  gentleman  was 
not  competent  to  connect  two  Pali  words  agreeably  to 
grammatical  rules,  but  committed  so  many  blunders  in  those 


33 


few  lines  of  Pali,  ins  hearers  would  be  able  to  judge  of  his 
fitness  to  explain  the  great  Buddha’s  abstruse  metaphysics 
found  only  in  works  written  in  that  language.  The  assembled 
multitude  may  not  know  whether  his  (the  Priest’s)  criticism 
of  the  rev.  gentleman’s  grammatical  constructions  was 
correct  or  not ; but  if  he  were  wrong,  there  was  no  doubt  that 
the  priests  well  versed  in  Pali  literature  who  surrounded  him, 
would  correct  him.  To  the  learned  it  certainly  was  amusing 
to  hear  the  rev.  gentleman,  with  such  an  imperfect  knowledge 
of  Pali,  attempting  to  explain  the  difficult  doctrine  of  Pan- 
caslchandha. 

Pancaskhandha,  then,  consists  of  the  five  components, — 
Rupaskhandha,  the  body.  2.  Wedanaskhandha,  sensation.  3. 
Sannaskhandha,  perception.  4.  Sanskharaskhandha,  discrimina- 
tion; and  5.  external  consciousness.  It  was 

well  known  that  at  man’s  death  Ricpaskhandha,  or  the  body, 
was  consigned  to  the  grave,  and  that  Wedanaskhandha,  or 
physical  sensation,  ceased  to  exist.  So  they  may  be  quite 
sure  that  no  part  of  these  two  Skhandhas  ever  went  to  another 
world  to  enjoy  bliss  or  suffer  punishment.  In  like  manner, 
the  remaining  three  Skhandhas,  too,  ceased  to  exist  at  man’s 
death ; and  neither  did  they  suffer  in  a future  existence 
the  consequences  of  acts  done  in  this  life.  But  yet  the  being 
who  is  produced  simultaneously  with  the  extinction  of 
Pancaskhaadha  was  not  a different  being.  He  would  try  to 
make  this  doctrine  yet  clearer.  The  much  revered  Bible  of 
the  Christians  was  not  the  original  Bible  written  by  Hoses 
and  others,  and  in  use  amongst  the  primitive  believers  of 
Christ ; and  yet  they  could  not  say  it  was  a different  Bible. 
The  substance  in  both  was  the  same,  though  it  was  not  the 
identical  book  : so  it  was  Atma.  Though  at  one’s  death 
all  those  constituents  which  make  up  the  outward  physical 
man  perish,  and  no  portion  of  them  is  transferred  to  another 
world,  yet  the  conscious  being,  though  produced  in 
consequence,  is  not  a different  one.  Accordingly,  it  was  as 
incorrect  to  say  that  it  was  a different  being  who  suffered  for 
the  good  or  evil  committed  here,  as  to  ^..ssert  that  it  was  the 
identical  doer  with  all  his  environments  who  thus  suffered. 
He  (the  Priest)  hoped  that  his  illustration  of  the  Bible  would 

3 


84 


have  enabled  his  auditory  to  more  fully  comprehend  this 
abstruse  doctrine.  The  following  Pah,  extract  from  the 
Kattmrastu  Prakarana  of  the  Abhidhanna  Pitaka  fully  bore 
out  the  assertion  made  at  the  outset  of  his  lecture,  that  if 
the  human  soul  participated  in  a future  existence,  the  conse- 
quences of  acts  done  in  this  life,  the  beings  who  dwelt  in 
heaven  must  be  men,  instead  of  glorified  spirits. 

kio’eva  puggalo  sandhavati  asma  loka  paran  tokan,  parasma 
loka  imaii  lokan  Hi  amanta  atthi  koci  mannsso  hiitva  devo  hotiHi 
micca,  Sace  hi  sandhavati  svHva  gmggalo  ito  onto  param 
lokam  anannahevan  maranan  nahotiHi  pianatipato'pinupalahhhati. 

“If  they  say  that  the  same  person  passes  from  this  world 
to  the  other  world,  or  from  the  other  world  to  this  world, 
then  some  who  having  been  men  become  gods,  it  is  false.  If 
this  very  person  passes  it  is  the  same  man  that  having  died 
goes  from  here  to  the  other  world,  not  another,  and  there  is 
no  death,  and  there  will  be  no  killing.” 

Human  beings  had  two  deaths ; one  was  the  complete 
change  sensations  undem'-ent  every  moment,  which  resulted 
in  the  production  of  new  emotions  ; and  the  other  was  that 
death  which  every  body  understood  by  the  phrase  of 
“ going  to  another  world.”  Sensations,  they  were  well  aware, 
vary  every  moment : desires,  power  of  thinking,  passions,  and 
opinions  change  constantly.  The  body,  too,  which,  according 
to  Buddhism,  consisted  of  thii’ty-two  parts,  undergoes,  though 
imperceptibly,  the  same  operation  : for  instance,  hair,  which 
was  one  of  these  thirty-two  components,  grew  every  day,  and 
its  attaining  an  extraordinary  length,  when  not  cut,  was  only 
prevented  by  its  occasionally  faUiug  off.  Accordingly,  the 
hair  now  on  their  heads  was  not  the  same  as  that  they  had 
when  they  were  infants.  This  change  was  not  confined  to 
hair ; the  remaining  constituents  of  the  body  shared  the  same 
fate — that  of  being  produced  and  of  perishing  every  moment. 
Moreover,  the  various  parts  of  Pnpaskhandha  (outward  appear- 
ance) were  also  subject  to  this  momentary  death  to  which 
allusion  was  previously  made.  The  proper  meaning  of  the 
second  death,  of  which  he  had  spoken,  was  the  teraiination 
of  man’s  career  in  this  life.  Simultaneously  -ndth  this  death, 
a change  of  existence,  causing  the  production  of  a being  to 


35 


whom  the  quintessence  of  man’s  inmost  desires  was  trans- 
feiTed,  took  place.  It  was  not  a new  being  that  was  thus 
produced,  as  tiie  rev.  gentleman  had  attempted  to  shew  ; 
because  the  desire  producing  the  being  was  not  a new  desire, 
but  only  a result  of  those  that  preceded  it.  The  origin  of 
the  desu’es  was  the  same,  and  there  was  a continuity  in  them, 
the  quintessence  of  wliich  only  took  shape  at  death.  If.  as 
Christians  declared,  the  Afnia  which  proceeded  to  another 
world  were  undying,  and  was  not  a cleaving  to  existence,  as 
he  had  just  explained,  and  which  was  the  view  held  by  the 
Buddhists,  what  did  the  Christians  mean  by  it  Was  it 
matter  ? had  it  any  shape  ? was  it  like  an  egg,  a stick,  or  a 
fi’uit?  If  it  were  some  substance  that  they  meant  by  Atma,  surely 
it  would  not  be  diillcult  to  confine  it  by  locking  up  a dying 
man  in  an  air-ticrht  chest.  Should  the  Christians  fail  to 
explain  the  exact  nature  of  this  Atma,  that  itself  would  be 
conclusive  evidence  to  prove  there  was  no  Atma  that  travelled 
to  another  world.  The  doctrine  of  the  being  that  is  producevl 
at  death  has  been  propounded  to  the  Buddhists  in  the  words 
na  ca  so,  na  ca  anno.  By  na  ca  so  was  meant  that  it  was  not 
the  same  being,  and  na  ca  anno  signified  that  it  was  not 
another.  He  could  give  abimdant  authorities  in  support  of 
his  positions,  but  he  thought  he  had  sufficiently  clearly 
explained  to  the  assembly  that  though  the  conscious  being 
passing  into  another  world  was  not  the  same  hutnan  being 
that  walked  this  earth,  yet  it  was  not  another ; and  so  it  was 
most  incorrect  to  say  that  it  was  a different  person  that 
suffered  in  a future  existence  for  the  misdeeds  committed  in 
this,  or  that  the  existence  of  a living  principle  was  denied  by 
them  (the  Buddhists),  as  the  rev.  gentleman  had  attempted 
to  prove. 

lie  (tlie  Priest)  would  now  bring  this  pcrdlon  of  his 
argument  to  a close,  as  he  was  sure  he  had  completely  refuted 
the  arguments  adduced  against  Buddhism  to  the  entire 
satisfaction  of  his  auditory.  He  had  much  more  to  say, 
however,  in  regard  to  the  same  subject,  but  he  would  defer 
further  remarks  to  the  subsequent  occasions  during  which  he 
would  have  the  privilege  of  addressing  them. 

And  with  reference  to  Cliristianity,  the  Priest  went  on  to 


33 


Bay  tliat  the  Christian  was  not  a true  religion,  and  hy 
embracing  it  no  being  can  thereby  hope  to  enjoy  bliss  in  a 
future  life.  Out  of  the  many  errors  with  which  Christianity 
teemed,  he  would  point  out  a few,  which  would  conclusively 
shew  that  that  religion  was  not  wortliy  of  credence. 

In  the  first  place,  Christians,  wdierever  they  went,  com- 
menced propagating  their  religion  by  giving  the  object  of 
their  worship  the  name  of  a being  already  held  in  veneration 
by  the  nations  amongst  whom  they  intended  preaching  the 
Gospel ; for  instance,  in  Calcutta,  Christ  was  called  Son  of 
lujcara,  which  would  be  seen  from  tlie  words,  Isivanjna  !>vfc 
Khri-ste,  to  occur  in  a Sanskrit  stanza.  This  was  done  ii 
the  view  of  enlisting  the  sympathies  of  the  Hindus,  who 
held  the  god  Isicara  in  great  reverence.  And  in  Ceylon, 
Jehovah  went  by  the  name  of  Dewi^anira/Hmsc,”  as  this 
term  existed  amongst  the  Singhalese  to  denote  the  gods  iu 
whom  they  believed.  It  would  thus  be  seen  that  the 
‘Christians  adapted  themselves  to  different  nations  with  the 
view  of  deceiving  them.  Again  in  Exod.  xx.  5,  the  words 
■used  for  “jealous  God”  did  not  express  the  meaning  con- 
veyed in  the  original.  The  word  “Jevalita  ” which  appeared 
in  the  Singhalese  Bible,  meant  glittering,  or  luminous,  but 
the  English  word  “jealous”  did  not  mean  anything  of  the 
kind ; the  proper  synonym  for  it  would  have  been  envious, 
for  what  w'as  jealousy  but  envy  ? If  the  word  “ envy  ” had 
been  used  by  the  translators,  there  would  have  been  no  chance 
of  deceiving  the  people,  for  who  would  have  believed  in  an 
enviom  God?  and  that  was  the  reason  for  giving  such  an 
interpretation  to  the  English  word  “jealous.”  He  could 
assure  his  hearers  that  deceit  was  habitually  practised  by  the 
Christian  teachers  with  the  view  of  gaining  converts,  and  in 
hopes  that  even  such  a course  would  help  their  cause.  They 
were  also  iu  the  habit  of  omitting  portions  of  Scripture 
whenever  it  suited  their  purpose ; for  instance,  in  the  edition 
of  the  Scriptures  published  in  1840  by  the  very  Society  to 
which  the  rev.  gentleman  belonged,  the  passage,  “ And  they 
■shall  no  more  offer  their  services  unto  devils  after  whom  they 
have  gone  a whoring,”  appeared  in  Lev.  xvii.  6,  but  in  the 
later  edition  published  by  the  same  Society  a gross  deception 


87 


had  been  practised  by  leaving  those  words  out.  Possibly 
the  Christians  were  ashamed  that  it  should  be  known  tliat 
they  had  offered  sacrifices  to  devils,  and  had  omitted  this 
passage  from  the  second  edition.  He  was  surprised  at  this 
omission.  Who  had  the  right  to  omit  or  add  a verse  at 
pleasure  to  a book  for  which  a Divine  origin  was  claimed  ? 
If  such  omissions  were  made  in  one  portion,  what  was  to 
prevent  garbled  accounts  appearing  in  other  parts  of  the 
Bible  ? This  habit  of  adding  to,  and  omitting  from,  the 
Bible  was  very  common  amongst  Protestants,  but  he  was 
glad  to  say  that  it  was  not  so  with  the  Homan  Catholics,  to 
whom  great  praise  was  due  for  never  altering  their  Bibles. 

Further,  in  Gen.  vi.  6,  speaking  of  Jehovah,  the  Creator,  it 
w'as  declared,  “ And  it  repented  the  Lord  that  he  had  made 
man  on  the  earth  and  it  grieved  him  at  his  heart.”  Who 
usually  commit  actions  for  which  they  have  cause  to  regret 
afterwards?  Was  it  not  ignorant,  foolish  man  alone?  and 
how  supremely  ridiculous  was  it  for  a Creator  who  was 
declared  to  be  omniscient  to  commit  any  actions  for  which  it 
was  necessary  to  repent  and  grieve  ? If  he  were  omniscient, 
he  ought  surely  to  have  seen  the  consequences  of  his  creating 
man,  on  account  of  w'hich  it  is  said  he  afterwards  repented, 
and  his  failing  to  foresee  this  result  clearly  proves  that  the 
Christians’  God  does  not  possess  any  such  foreknowing  power 
as  is  attributed  to  him.  How  improper  was  it,  then,  to  believe 
on  such  a frail,  repenting  and  grieving  being  as  the  Christians’ 
omnipotent  God  and  Creator?  Were  not  they  convinced 
that  Jehovah  was  not  omniscient;  and  further,  that  he  had 
all  the  failings  of  man  ? 

It  would  also  seem  that  God  required  some  visible  means 
of  identifying  any  required  thing,  or  in  other  words,  that 
like  a blind  man  he  needs  a guide;  for  instance,  before  the 
first  born  of  Egypt  were  killed,  it  was  ordered  that  blood 
should  be  sprinkled  on  the  door  posts  of  the  houses  of  the 
Israelites,  in  order  to  distinguish  their  houses  from  those  of 
the  Egyptians ; for  according  to  Exod.  xii.  23,  “ The  Lord 
wall  pass  through  to  smite  the  Egyptians,  and  when  he  seeth 
the  blood  upon  the  lentil  and  on  the  two  side  posts,  the  Lord 
will  pass  over  the  door,  and  will  not  suffer  the  destroyer  tc 


38 


come  in  unto  your  Louses  to  smite  you.”  This  shewed  that 
it  was  impossible  for  Jehol’ah  to  distinguish  the  houses  of 
the  Israelites  without  this  outward  and  visible  sign:  if  he 
were  omniscient,  surely  this  was  not  necessary.  Wliat  right, 
then,  bad  they  to  call  this  being  an  omniscient  God  ? lie 
(the  Priest)  knew  that  his  friend  the  rev.  gentleman  would 
attempt  to  explain  this  away  by  assigning  the  ridiculous 
reason  of  its  being  a symbol  of  Christ’s  death ; but  he  would 
not  let  him  otf  with  any  such  puerile  reply. 

In  the  command  given  to  iloses  in  Exod.  iv.  6,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  miracles  that  he  was  to  perform  before  the  King  of 
Egypt,  God’s  orders  were  to  do  a certain  miracle,  and  if  the 
Israelites  were  not  given  up,  to  perform  a second  and  so  on ; 
but  what  was  the  necessity  for  this  conditional  order  if  he  were 
omniscient?  Pie  should  have  certainly  known  the  effect 
of  those  miracles  if  he  really  were  what  he  was  represented 
to  be.  "Was  not  imperfect  human  nature  betrayed  even  in 
this  ? The  line  of  conduct  of  a medical  man  was  precisely 
similar : if  one  medicine  failed,  another  was  prescribed  : this 
w’as  simply  because  the  medical  man  was  not  omniscient,  was 
not  certain  of  the  effects  of  each  medicine.  What,  then,  did 
this  incident  shew  ? Simply  what  he  asserted  before,  namely, 
that  the  Creator  was  not  omniscient. 

There  was  another  passage  in  the  Bible  which  would  give 
them  an  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  God  that  the  Christians 
believed  in  ; and  tliat  was  Exod.  iv.  24.  Itwas  there  stated — 
“And  it  came  to  pass  by  the  Avay  in  the  inn,  that  the  Lord  met 
him,  and  sought  to  kill  him.  Then  Zipporah  took  a sharp  stone, 
and  cut  off  the  foreskin  of  her  son,  and  cast  it  at  his  feet,  and 
said,  Surely  a bloody  husband  art  thou  to  me.  So  he  let  him 
go.”  They  will  here  see  that  tlie  means  adopted  by  Zipporah, 
when  God  sought  to  kill  Moses  whom  he  had  once  chosen  as 
a servant,  were  not  quite  unknown  to  some  of  them.  Did 
it  not  remind  them  of  the  sacrifices  usually  made  to  appease 
the  ivrath  of  some  other  beings  whom  it  was  unnecessary  to 
name  ? What  was  the  procedure  adopted  by  devil  dancers 
in  this  country  when  any  body  was  afflicted  with  a disease 
brought  on  by  the  influence  of  evil  spirits  ? Was  it  not  to 
shed  the  blood  of  a goat  or  a fowl,  as  the  case  might  be,  by 


39 


cuttings  some  part  of  tlie  animal,  and  offering' it  to  the  Devx^? 
The  course  pursued  by  Zipporah  was  just  the  same,  and  he 
would  leave  them  (the  crowd)  to  judge  of  the  natui'e  of  the 
God  of  the  Christians,  whose  wrath  was  appeased  and  Moses 
saved  by  throwing  the  foreskin  at  his  feet. 

Again,  it  appeared  from  Jutlges  i.  19  that  “though  the 
Lord  was  with  Judah  when  he  drove  out  the  inhahitauts  of 
tlie  mountain,  yet  he  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of 
the  valle}^  because  they  had  chariots  of  iron.”  This  incident 
was  further  proof  , and  a very  convincing  one,  that  the  God  of 
the  Hebrews,  whom  the  Christians  adored,  was  not  Almighty; 
it  shewed  that  he  feared  iron  ; and  every  one  there  p’resent, 
the  Pnest  said,  knew  who  vrere  afraid  of  iron  ! It  was  usual 
amongst  the  natives  of  this  country  to  have  a small  piece  of 
iron  when  food  was  carried  from  one  place  to  another,  and 
when  decoctions  were  prepared  it  wa^  customary  to  tie  a 
string  with  a piece  of  iron  hanging  from  it  round  the  pot  in 
which  is  the  medicine.  This  was  done  to  keep  away  devils 
and  sundry  evil  spirits ; and  that  was  the  meaning  of  the 
God  of  the  Hebrews  fearing  iron  chariots  ! It  was  needless 
for  him  to  further  explain.  These  facts  woukl  greatly  assist 
his  auditory  to  form  a correct  opinion  as  to  whether  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Christians  was  the  true  God  or  not.  In 
conclusion,  the  eloquent  Priest  said  that  he  had  explained 
what  the  Buddhists  meant  by  Atma,  and  he  hoped  the  rev. 
gentleman  would  tell  them  what  Christians  meant  by  a soul\ 
and  unless  Mr.  Silva  would  produce  authorities  to  support 
his  statement  that  Buddha  had  likened  a human  beine:  to  a 
brute,  he  (the  Priest)  would  consider  him  as  having  uttered 
an  untruth.  The  term  Atma  was  used  by  him,  he  said,  as  id 
was  the  only  word  in  general  use  to  express  the  subtle 
principle  or  cleaving  to  existence  of  which  he  had  been 
speaking.  He  had  three  hours  more  before  him  to  engage 
in  this  controversy,  durirg  which  he  would  conclusively 
shew  the  truth  of  Buddhism,  and  adduce  further  argumenta 
to  prove  the  falsity  of  Christianity.  After  thanking  the 
large  audience  for  having  so  attentively  listened  to  him,  the 
Priest  closed  his  speech,  and  immediately  the  great  crowd 
dispersed. 


40 


THE  REV.  MR.  SILVa’s  SECOND  SPEECH. 

At  tliree  o’clock — the  hour  appointed  for  resuming  the  con- 
troversy— the  crowd  had  increased  three-fold ; the  inhabitants 
of  the  neighbouring  villages,  having  heard  of  the  two  able 
and  effective  speeches  of  the  eloquent  disputants,  flocked  into 
the  green  arouud  the  bungalow,  and  by  the  time  the  speakers 
ascended  the  “ rostrum,”  the  din  of  the  thousands  of  human 
voices  was  so  great  that  a severe  fight  between  the  two  fac- 
tions was  apprehended,  hut  when,  in  a sharp,  but  clear  voice, 
the  Rev.  David  Silva  commenced  to  reply,  the  confusion 
ceased,  and  the  multitude,  at  least  as  many  of  them  as  were 
at  a hearing  distance,  listened  with  deep  attention  to  the 
words  that  fell  from  the  learned  speaker. 

Mr.  Silva  said  that  he  would  reply  in  as  few  words  as 
possible  to  the  strictures  made  on  Christianity,  and  pass  on 
to  point  out  the  very  serious  defects  in  the  religion  professed 
by  his  opponent.  With  reference  to  the  charge  that  he  was 
ignorant  of  the  Pali  language,  and  which  was  attempted  to 
be  proved  by  pointing  out  a passage  in  a work  published 
by  him,  he  said  that  if  his  opponent  had  taken  the  trouble 
to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  title  page  even  of  the 
Grantha  sahera  he  would  not  have  made  such  a miserable 
exhibition  of  his  ignorance.  The  misrepresentation  of  facts 
by  his  opponent  was  either  wilful,  or  done  througli  ignorance; 
for  the  title  page  of  the  work  distinctly  stated  that  the 
passages  therein  contained  were  selections  made  by  him  from 
different  works.  Even  if  there  was  an  ungrammatically 
connected  passage,  he  was  not  responsible.  The  two  Avords 
on  which  so  much  stress  had  been  laid  by  his  opponent  Avere 
simply  reprinted  by  him  from  the  Burmese  Testament,  and 
sui’eiy  it  Avas  not  his  proAunce,  in  a work  like  the  one  he  was 
engaged  in,  to  correct  the  misreadings;  his  object  was  to 
make  a /(?(P  from  some  standard  works,  and  nothing 

more.  So  much  for  his  opponent’s  charge  of  his  ignorance 
of  Pali. 

An  attempt  was  also  made  by  his  opponent  to  impugn 
the  honesty  of  the  translators  of  the  Bible,  by  declaring  that 
a portion  of  a verse  appearing  in  one  edition  of  the  Singha* 


41 


lese  Scriptures  ■u-as  wilfully  and  deliberately  omitted  in  a 
later  one.  A greater  untruth  had  never  been  uttered.  There 
was  not  one  in  that  assembly  competent  to  question  the 
honesty  of  the  learned  translators  of  the  Singhalese  Bible. 
In  fact,  there  was  no  omission  at  all,  but  in  order  to  render 
the  translation  as  close  to  the  original  as  possible,  a transpo- 
sition of  verses  had  been  made  in  the  second  edition  different 
to  that  in  the  first ; and  that  was  the  omission  of  which  his 
opponent  had  made  so  much.  lie  would  assure  his  hearers 
that  it  was  the  love  of  truth  that  had  actuated  the  translators, 
and  the  charge  of  dishonesty  laid  against  them  would  only 
recoil  on  his  opponent  himself.  And  in  regard  to  his  oppo- 
nent’s question,  whether  it  would  not  be  possible  to  retain 
what  Christians  called  the  soul  by  locking  up  a dying  man  in 
a closed  chest,  as  even  air  could  be  confined,  the  learned 
lecturer  said  that  illustration  only  betraj'ed  the  ignorance  of 
his  opponent.  It  was  his  (the  Priest’s)  impression  that  there 
was  nothing  so  fine  as  air ; but  he  little  knew  that  electricity 
was  so  much  more  subtle  than  air  that  it  could  pierce  through 
any  substance,  and  certainly  through  an  iron  chest,  in  which 
his  opponent  had  proposed  that  a dying  man  should  be 
placed  to  prevent  the  soul  from  escaping  from  it.  The 
reason  for  styling  Christ  Sou  of  Isicara,  in  Calcutta,  was  not 
with  the  view  of  deceiving  the  people  as  his  opponent  had 
declared  ; but  as  “ Isivara  ” meant  in  the  original  Sanskrit 
a being  endowed  with  great  power  and  might,  this  word  was 
made  use  of  to  express  these  qualities  in  the  great  Bather  of 
Christ.  The  meaning  attached  to  the  word  Iswara  at  the 
present  day  is  not  the  one  given  to  it  in  the  Vedas,  where  the 
term  is  used  to  express  any  being  who  was  chief  and  lord. 
With  reference  to  the  Singhalese  word  Dewijanwahnnse,  used 
by  the  Christians  here  to  signify  the  God  whom  they  wor- 
ship, it  was  not  adopted  by  them  to  deceive  the  people  of  the 
land,  as  his  opponent  most  unjustly  asserted,  but  simply 
because  the  language  did  not  afford  any  better  word.  He 
considered  it  very  improper  that  one  so  profoundly  ignorant 
of  the  different  senses  in  which  the  same  word  could  be  used, 
as  his  opponent  was,  should  engage  in  a controversy  like  the 
present 


42 


111  illustration  of  tlie  fact  tliat  words  liare  different 
meanings  lie  would  quote  the  following  passage  from  Vinaya 
Pitdlca : — 

Pandcil;o  Bhildchave  anuj)asamj)anno,  na  itpasampadctabho, 
tipasampcnmo  nascfahho. 

All  eunuch  who  was  unordained  ouccht  not  to  be  ordained. 
If  ordained  nunttahho. 

The  word  nasetahho  may  he  translated  “ ought  to  be 
killed ; ” but  Buddha,  whose  first  precept  was  not  to  take 
away  life,  would  not  say  that  the  ordained  eunuch  was  “ to 
be  killed,”  or  that  his  neck  was  to  be  cut  off ; at  least  no 
sane  man  will  put  that  construction ; what  Buddha  really 
said  was  to  disrobe  such  an  one,  to  excommunicate  him ; so 
it  was  with  many  words  in  Scripture.  They  had  more  than 
one  meaning.  It  was  so  in  every  language,  and  his  opponent 
himself  whilst  diseoursino:  on  the  sold  used  the  word  Atma 
throughout  his  speech,  though  he  denied  its  existence 
altogether ; what  did  he  mean  by  it  ? 

II is  opponent  had  also  spoken  of  God’s  repentance.  The 
original  Hebrew  word  translated  “ repentance  ” in  the  Sing- 
halese Bible  was  “ Kokam”  which  did  not  mean  that  God  had 
“regretted”  for  doing  anything  wrong:  and  to  further  eluci- 
date this  subject  he  would  read  an  extract  from  an  article  in  the 
Singhalese  periodical  the  Banner  of  Truth — See  page  39  in 
Yol.  of  1801.  (Tide  Appendix  A.)  As  for  God’s  order  to 
mark  the  door  posts  of  the  houses  of  the  Israelites  with  blood, 
the  lecturer  said  that  was  simply  a symbol  of  Christ’s  death. 

The  lecturer  then  passed  on  to  point  out  the  absurdities 
and  contradictions  of  Buddha’s  teaching  in  regard  to  the 
origin  of  animal  life,  and  quoted  the  following  passage  from 
the  Sanyutta  nikuya: — 

Katanie  ca  Blukkhave  patkeammuppade  J Avijja  ptdccaya, 
Bhikkhave  sainkhara,  mmkhara  paccaya  tdnnanam,  linnana 
paccaya  nania  rupa/n,  nama  rupa  paccaya  salayatanam,  Sa/aya- 
tana  paccaya  phasso,  phassa  paccaya  vedam,  redana  paccaya 
tanka,  tanka  paccaya  npadanam.  vpadana  paccaya  Ikavo,  hkava 
paccaya  jati,  jati  paccaya  jara  maranam  soka  parideca  diikkka 
domanass  upayam  samhkavanti.  Beam  etas&a  kevala&sa  dukkka 
khandkema  nainudayo  koti. 


43 


Priests,  -wliat  is  paticca  samii})j)&cla  ? On  account  of  igno- 
rance, Priests,  sankhara,  merit  and  demerit,  are  produced ; on 
account  of  merit  and  demerit,  consciousness,  on  account  of 
consciousness,  nama  rupa,  on  account  of  ncuna  ripa,  the  six 
sensitive  organs,  on  account  of  the  six  sensitive  organs, 
contact,  on  account  of  contact,  sensation,  on  account  of  sensa- 
tion, desire,  on  account  of  desh-e,  cleaving  to  existence,  on 
account  of  cleaving  to  existence,  hh  iva,  states  of  existence,  on 
account  of  hhava,  birth,  on  account  of  birth,  decay,  death, 
sorrow,  crying,  pain,  disgust,  and  passionate  discontent. 
Thus  is  produced  the  complete  body  of  sorrow. 

Now  ai'ijja  was  dukklie  annanam  diikkha  samudcnje  annnnnm, 
ignorance  of  sorrow,  ignorance  of  the  producing  causes  of 
sorrow,  etc.,  etc.  But  what  is  dukkha  ? It  is  jcdi,  jam, 
maranam, — birth,  decay,  and  death;  avijja,  then,  is  ignorance  of 
that  which  did  not  exist,  ioi:  jati,  bu'th,  is  the  consequence  of 
hhara,  existence. 

In  consequence  of  avijja,  samk/uira  is  produced.  Samkhcira 
is  the  accumulation  of  punnahhisamkhara,  merit,  and  apiinnah- 
Imamkliara,  demerit ; he  who  had  vijjd,  clear  preception,  Avill 
either  accumulate  merit  or  demerit,  but  tlie  Buddhists  are 
told  to  perform  kunal,  merit,  to  accumulate  merit ; but 
according  to  Buddha’s  doctrine,  the  accumulation  of  merit 
was  the  consequence  of  ignorance. 

Because  of  scmikhara  vinnana,  consciousness  is  produced. 
Now  what  is  vinnana  ? It  is  cakkhu  vinnanam,  sota  vinnanam, 
ghana  vinnanam,  jivha  vinnanam,  kaya  vinnanam,  mano 
vinnanam,  consciousness  of  the  eye,  ear,  the  nose,  the  tongue, 
the  body,  the  mind.  But  tliese  organs  are  not  yet  produced ; 
they  are  not  in  existence  ; the  cause  of  the  ayatanas,  organs, 
being  nama  rnpa.  Besides  it  is  clearly  stated  that  the  vinnana 
cannot  exist  independent  of  nama  rupa,  that  all  the  khandhas 
must  come  into  existence  paripunna,  perfect,  and  ekato, 
together ; neither  after  nor  before,  apaccha  apure. 

In  consequence  of  vinnana,  nama  rupa  are  produced, 
although  the  fii’st  four  khandas  constitute  nama  rupa;  yet 
Nam  ru  deka  hera 
Net  an  pugul  hehera 


44 


besides  tbe  nama  rupa,  there  is  no  other  individual.  The 
whole  individual  is  perfect  in  nama  rnpa. 

lu  consequence  of  nama  rupa  the  six  organs  salayatana 
ai’e  produced,  hut  vinnana  was  the  consciousness  of  the 
eye,  etc.,  and  the  nama  rupa  included  the  whole  individual  ; 
but  here  the  organs  are  the  consequence  of  the  perfect  five 
hhandhas. 

In  consequence  of  the  six  organs  phassa,  contact,  is 
produced,  but  p/iassa  was  included  in  the  nama  which  was 
the  consequence  of  consciousness.  Now  it  is  the  consequence 
of  ihe  organs,  and  the  nama  was  contact  produced phamija. 

In  consequence  of  pha.isa,  vedana,  sensation,  is  produced, 
hut  what  is  vedana  ? It  is  calckha  sampha^snaja  vedana,  sensation 
produced  by  the  contact  of  the  eye ; so  of  sotasamphassaja, 
ghana,  jicalia,  kaga,  mano. 

But  the  vedana  is  included  in  the  nama  which  was 
produced  before  the  organs  were  produced,  and  that  as  the 
result  of  contact.  Tattha  katamam  namam.  What  then  is 
nama  ? vedanakkhandhn,  sensation,  sannakkkandko,  perception, 
samkharcdckliandho,  discrimination.  If  nama  rupa  were  the 
result  of  vinnana,  certainly  vedana  could  not  he  the  con- 
sequence of  2iJtns>ia. 

In  consequence  of  vedana  tanka,  desire  is  produced,  but 
avijja  was  ignorance  of  dukkka  samudaga,  the  producing  cause 
of  sorrow,  which  is  defined  to  be,  ga  gam  tanka  ponobkavika 
nandiraga  sakagata  tandra  tandaja  nandini  seggatkiidam.  kama 
tanlia;  hkava  tanka,  vibkava  tanka.  It  is  the  desire  of 
continued  existence  and  delighting  in  the  enjoyment  of  that 
state  they  now  occupy,  i.e.,  desire  of  pleasure,  of  continued 
transmigration,  and  of  annihilation  upon  death  ; so  then  this 
tanka  must  exist  befoi’e  one  could  be  ignorant  of  it. 

Now  to  come  to  juti,  the  consequent  of  bhava;  what  hjati? 
It  is  the  kkandkanam  pedubkavo,  the  coming  to  existence  of 
the  kkandkas  and  the  agatanam  patilabko,  the  development  of 
the  organs.  But  vinnana  produced  nama  rupa,  which  in  their 
turn  produced  the  organs ; here  bkava  is  said  to  be  the 
antecedent  kkandkas  and  the  agatanas.  Hence  the  great 
confusion  of  this  so-called,  the  previously  unkno^vm 
doctrine. 


43 


The  lecturer  then  wound  up  by  saying  : I divide  this  large 
assembly  into  two  classes,  the  learned  and  the  unlearned,  and 
this  subject  being  indeed  a subject  for  the  learned,  I beg 
them  to  consider  whether  this  fundamental  doctrine  of 
Buddha  was  not  an  absurdity,  and  a confusion  of  thought. 
Is  it  not  like  saying  the  son  is  begotten  by  the  father,  and 
the  father  is  begotten  by  the  son,  and  both,  have  one  origin, 
ignorance?  How  absurd  is  the  theory  I 


THE  UEV.  migettuv.'atte’s  second  rejoixdeu.  * 

The  Rev.  Migettuwatte,  rising,  begged  of  the  people  to 
give  him  a patient  hearing,  and  said  that  though  previously 
he  had  styled  the  gentleman  who  had  just  spoken  the  rev. 
gentleman,  yet  he,  in  his  reply,  having  called  him  (the 
Priest)  virmlhakarayn,  “the  opponent,”  it  was  his  intention 
to  use  the  same  epithet  towards  him,  and  wished  his  hearers 
to  distinctly  understand  this.  Though  the  two  speakers, 
belonging  to  two  different  religions,  had  come  forward  to 
take  part  in  the  controversy,  solely  with  the  view  of  ascer- 
taining which  was  the  true  religion,  he  said  that  there  was 
no  personal  enmity  between  them,  which  the  word  “opponent 
or  adversary  ” used  by  the  opposite  side  would  seem  to  imply, 
but  now  that  it  had  been  used,  he  regretted  to  say  he  had  no 
other  alternative  but  to  do  the  same. 

With  regard  to  the  last  speech  of  the  Christian  party,  he 
would  mention  that  no  attempt  had  ever  been  made  to  explain 
the  reason  for  using  the  milder  ■wordy?ra//i'«  in  the  Singhalese 
Bible,  thus  deceiving  the  natives  of  this  Island.  The 
word  “ envy,”  as  he  once  assured  them,  was  the  tr  i ) 
meaning  of  the  w'ord  “jealous”  in  the  original ; neither  dui 
his  opponent  mention  or  explain  how  this  jealousy  or  envy 


• The  Buddhist  Priest,  IMigettuwatte,  though  a noted  Singhalese  and 
Pali  scholar,  was  necessarily  troubled  at  times  in  finding  idiomatic  wo  ds 
to  convey  his  meaning.  Knowing  his  deficiency  in  understanding  the 
genius  of  the  English  language,  and  difficulty  in  the  selection  of  terms,  I 
have  made,  by  request,  some  changes.  I hope,  however,  they  are  to  tha 
benefit,  rather  than  to  the  injury  of  the  Buddhist's  arguuu'nts. 


46 


aspigned  to  the  Creator  could  be  reconciled  with  bis  other 
attributes.  His  opponent  knew  as  well  as  himself  that  it 
was  impossible  to  give  a satisfactory  reply  to  these  objections, 
and  that  was  the  reason  of  bis  silence.  His  opponent’s 
sbiiking  the  responsibility  of  the  work  published  in  bis  name, 
which  contained  several  ungrammatical  Pali  passages,  by 
stating  that  be  was  only  a compiler,  was  not  satisfactory.  If 
be  knew  Pali  correctly  be  would  not  have  allowed  such  an 
egregious  blunder  as  be  bad  pointed  out  to  creep  into  bis 
work  uncorrected : the  j)assage  may  have  been  taken  from 
the  Burmese  Testament,  as  was  alleged,  but  that  did  not  the 
less  betray  bis  opponent’s  ignorance  of  Pali:  it  was  highly 
improper  that  the  incorrect  passage  should  have  been  copied 
without  alteration.  The  accounting  for  the  omission  of  a 
passage  in  one  edition  of  the  Singhalese  Old  Testament, 
which  appeared  in  a previous  one,  by  stating  that  there  bad 
been  a transposition  of  verses,  was  also  unsatisfactory. 
Clearly  one  or  the  other  of  the  editions  was  WTong  ! If  tlie 
placing  a passage  in  a certain  position  correctly  expressed  the 
meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed,  by  transposing  it  a 
dillerent  and  an  incorrect  meaning  would  be  given.  Which 
construction  were  they  to  receive  as  the  correct  one  ? And 
BO  all  his  opponent’s  eulogium  as  to  the  honesty  of  the 
translators  went  for  nothing.  Both  sets  of  translators  could 
not  have  been  either  equally  honest  or  learned;  if  they  were, 
the  airangement  of  the  verses  in  both  the  translations  would 
have  been  the  same  ; the  fact  was  that  the  Christians  altered 
their  Bibles  whenever  they  pleased. 

Spvling  Christ  “ Son  of  Isvara  ” was  attempted  to  be 
explained  by  proving  that  words  had  various  meanings : but 
they  all  knew  that  this  was  a very  lame  defence,  and  that 
the  true  object  of  the  Christians  was  to  deceive,  and  ingratiate 
themselves  into  the  favour  of  the  Hindus,  who  held  laiara  in 
reverence.  Well,  if  the  Christians’  God  was  Iseciia,  had 
Jehovah  a wife  as  Isvara  is  said  to  have?  Umayan- 
ganawa  was  the  name  of  his  wife ; what  was  the  name  of  the 
partner  of  the  Christians’  God?  Perhaps  the  Christians 
themselves  did  not  know.  He  would  enlighten  them  on  a 
future  occasion.  What  was  the  reply  adduced  by  hia 


47 


opponent  to  the  remarks  made  by  him  upon  Gen.  vi.  6, 
■wherein  it  was  said  that  the  Lord  repented  and  grieved  for 
ha'ving  made  man  on  earth  ? Absolutely  nothing.  It  is 
true  that  he  had  read  an  extract  from  an  old  number  of  the 
Banner  of  Truth,  a pamphlet  published  by  the  Christians 
in  connection  with  a controversy  held  on  a previous  occasion 
by  the  same  parties,  but  at  that  time  he  had  utterly  refuted 
the  teachings  of  the  passage,  and  so  what  ■was  the  use  in 
again  reiterating  those  hackneyed  argiunents  ? It  w’as  highly 
improper  that  that  obsolete  book  should  have  been  brought 
forward  before  such  an  assembly  as  the  present  one,  as  it 
was  no  reply  at  all  to  his  objections.  Fm’ther,  how  ridiculous 
was  it  to  explain  away  the  command  to  mark  the  door  posts 
of  the  houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  ■with  blood,  by  calling 
it  a symbol  of  Christ’s  death.  What  marking  of  door  posts 
was  there  on  that  occasion,  and  -n-hat  a silly  reply  ■tt'as  this  to 
his  argument,  that  because  the  Chi-istians’  God  required  an 
outward  and  ■visible  sign  to  distinguish  objects,  that,  there- 
fore, ho  did  not  possess  the  power  of  knowing  everything  ? 
Even  he  (the  Priest)  was  ashamed  that  such  a reply  should 
have  been  given  before  such  a learned  audience.  The  facts 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures  ■v\’ere  clear,  that  God,  seeing  the 
blood,  pas'ied  over  the  houses  of  the  Jews ; this  plainly  shewed, 
as  was  previously  stated,  that  the  Creator  required  some  sign 
whereby  to  identify  any  given  thing,  and  what  was  the 
inference  to  be  drawn  from  this  but  that  Jehovah  was  not 
omniscient  ? 

Thus  much  ■v\uth  reference  to  those  questions  that  had 
been  answered;  but  -^'hat  about  the  several  commuids 
given  to  Moses  in  regard  to  the  miracles  that  he  was  to 
perform  before  Pharaoh,  namely,  that  if  he  did  not  succeed 
with  one,  then  he  was  to  try  another,  ■which  fact  was  also 
mentioned  by  him  to  prove,  as  it  plainly  did,  that  God  ■s\'as 
not  omniscient;  and  ■svhat  ■was  the  reason  of  the  armies  of 
Judah  fleeing  a^vmy  from  the  chariots  of  iron?  How  did 
Christians  get  over  the  difficulty  arising  out  of  God’s 
injunction  to  circumcise  Moses’  son,  thereby  betraying  His 
fondness  for  human  blood  in  common  with  evil  spirits  having 
eimilar  tastes,  about  whom  it  was  unnecessary  to  give  a more 


43 


detailed  account  to  Lis  auditory  ? As  Le  Lad  sufTifiently 
clearly  explained,  on  a previous  occasion,  tLe  reason  for  tLe 
CLristians’  God  fearing  iron  and  of  Lis  fondness  for  Luman 
Llood,  Le  would  not  enlarge  upon  tLese  suLjects  at  present, 
but  tLe  affair  of  Moses’  son  would  clearly  sLew  tLcin,  if  any 
furtLer  explanation  were  at  all  needed,  tLe  reason  of  tLis 
fondness  of  iLe  CLristians’  J eLovaL  for  Luman  blood. 

And  now,  wLat  aLout  tlie  soul  of  tLe  CLristians?  wliat  was 
it  made  of  ? and  what  was  it  like,  if  it  did  not  resemble 
wLat  tlie  BuddLists  meant  Ly  Ahna  ? None  of  tLese 
questions  Lad  even  been  attempted  to  Le  explained:  tliey  all 
knew  wliat  that  signified. 

Lastly,  witL  reference  to  tlie  Buddliist  doctrine  of  Pan- 
cmhhandha  and  man’s  future,  they  were  not  subjects  that  were 
intelligible  to  persons  of  limited  knowledge:  tLe  being  wLo 
would  Lereafter  suffer  for  acticus  committed  in  tills  life  was 
not  tLe  identical  one  that  walked  this  earth,  tbougli  it  was 
not  a wholly  different  one,  as  Le  Lad  previously  shewn ; and 
Le  would  now  quote  a passage  from  the  Buddhist  Scriptures 
which  would  more  clearly  explain  to  them  this  abstruse 
subject.  It  was  this: — 

Marmumtika  vcdana  santattanmn  samnpatam  asahantassa 
itape  kldtta  harita  icda  pcdt arnica  kamena  vpa  aussamane  sarire 
naruddhcHU  cakkhadisu  indcii/esu  hadaija  vaiUni  matte  patitthite 
kai/indrii/a  manindn'i/a  jicltindrhjesu  tarn  khanavasesa  hadaya 
ratthu  sannissilam  idnnana  garu  saina  sevitasaima  ptihhakanam 
annataram  laddhacasesa  paccaya  sankhara  saiddiatam  kaminan 
tadupatthapitam  va  kamma  nimitta  gatinimitta  saiddiatam  visa- 
yam  arahhha  pavattati  tadecam  pacattamanam  ianha  vijjanam 
appaldnatta  acijja  piaticchadit  adinace  tasmia  visaye  tanhanamcti 
saliajata  sankhava  kJdpanti  saidati  vascna  tanhanamiyamanam 
saiddtai-e/d  Idtippiamaiiam  orimatira  ndddta  viidbadd/iam  rajjnma- 
lamhitca.  Matikatikkamakeriya  pucimanca  nissayaim  jahati 
aparanca  kamma  samutthapitam  nissayam  asadayamanam  ana- 
sadayamanam  va  arammanadild  eva  paccaycld pavattati. 

As  the  meaning  of  the  death  and  regeneration  of  a being 
was,  in  the  extract,  sought  to  Le  conveyed  Ly  a familiar 
illustration,  Le  would  give  tlieni  a free  translation  of  its 
meaning,  and  Le  Lad  no  doubt  that  Lis  auditory  would  then 


49 


be  able  to  better  comprehend  this  difficult  doctrine.  As  the 
newly  plucked  talipot  leaf,  when  put  in  the  sun,  loses  its 
green  colour  by  degrees  and  assumes  a whiteness,  so  at  his 
death  the  sentient  being  gradually  loses  the  use  of  his 
physical  senses,  such  as  those  of  seeing  and  hearing,  owing  to 
the  pains  of  death. 

While  this  process  of  the  loss  of  the  use  of  these 
senses  is  going  on,  three  of  the  senses  enter  the  body  and 
remain  attached  to  the  heart.  These  three  are,  the  sense  of 
feeling,  of  understanding,  and  that  of  life.  The  sense  of 
feeling  is  that  by  which  one  is  enabled  to  perceive  when  any 
object  touches  the  body,  the  sense  of  understanding  is  the 
power  of  distinguishing  any  object,  and  what  is  called  the 
inner  sense  of  life  is  the  state  of  undying  existence.  At  the 
death  of  the  being  with  whose  heart  was  associated  these 
three  senses,  he  sees,  as  if  in  a dream,  that  he  is  engaged  in 
the  same  actions,  whether  sinful  or  righteous,  to  which  he 
was  greatly  addicted  in  this  life ; for  instance,  if  he  had  been 
given  up  to  mui’der  and  other  heinous  crimes  all  his  life 
through,  at  his  last  moments  he  feels  as  if  he  is  again  com- 
mitting them,  but  if  his  career  on  earth  was  a righteous  one, 
as  if  he  had  been  practising  meritorious  actions,  such  as  giving 
alms  and  observing  “ sila”  he  perceives  at  death  that  he  is 
going  through  such  a holy  life  over  again.  If,  at  one’s  dying 
moments,  this  last  scene  presents  itself,  his  future  state  is 
sure  to  be  a happy  one.  And  it  is  equally  certain  that  the 
being  who  fancies  at  his  death  that  he  is  committing  immoral 
actions  will  be  born  into  a state  of  misery.  The  presentment 
of  the  nature  of  the  life  that  the  being  is  in  a future  state  to 
enjoy,  also  resembles  a dream,  that  is,  he  sees  the  state  in 
which  he  is  to  be  re-bom  as  if  it  were  in  a dream.  And  as 
this  state,  whether  happy  or  miserable,  appears  in  an  enchanted 
form,  man,  who  is  full  of  desires,  naturally  cleaves  to  it,  and 
in  consequence,  immediately  after  death,  realisation  takes 
place  in  that  state  of  which  he  had  the  presentiment.  Thus 
they  would  see  that  death  and  the  re-birth  of  the  being  are 
simultaneous.  In  short,  man’s  actions  and  desires  here 
affected  and  regulated  his  future  career,  and  this  cleaving  to 
existence  believed  in  by  them  (the  Buddhists)  was  according 

4 


.^0 


fo  the  desires  indulged  by  tbe  man  in  bis  existence  on  earth. 
Further,  no  part  of  man  proceeded  to  another  world  to  be 
born  again,  but  simply  this  cleaving  to  existence  took  place 
at  death,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  desires  that  existed 
in  liim,  and  therefore  to  say  that  the  being  who  suffered 
hereafter  for  actions  committed  in  this  world  was  not  the 
same  but  another,  was  absurd.  If  any  of  his  auditory  had 
been  present  at  the  bedside  of  a dying  man,  they  could  have 
no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  at  the  man’s  death  there  was 
always  a presentiment  of  the  future  misery  or  bliss  that  he 
was  going  to  partake  of.  This  found  expression,  they  would 
remember,  either  in  hideous  groanings  or  delightful  raptures. 
For  the  being  who  is  to  be  born  into  a happy  state  always 
sees  such  pleasant  and  delightful  objects  as  heavenly 
mansions,  etc.,  but  he  wliose  future  will  be  misery  only  sees 
the  terrors  of  torments,  and  his  exclamations  often  clearly' 
shew  to  the  bystander  whether  it  is  a state  of  misery  or  bliss 
that  the  man  is  going  to  inherit. 

The  Buddhist  doctrine  concerning  man  was  “ annmataggo 
yam  B/iiik/iave  i<a»!iii(()'o  puhha  Icofi  na  pannaunti''  etc.,  that  is, 
that  immortal  man  had  neither  a beginning  nor  an  ejid  ; and 
tlie  Cliristian  Bible,  rigidly  interpreted,  supported  this  view. 
Consider  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  creation  of  man,  as  con- 
tained in  Cxen.  ii.  7:  “ The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ; 
and  man  became  a living  soul.”  There  could  bo  no  doubt 
acording  to  this  account,  then,  that  the  spirit  breathed  into 
Adiun  was  a portion  of  the  spirit  of  God,  who  was  eternal ; 
tiius  Adam,  or  the  Adamic  form,  was  made  the  receptacle  of 
spirit,  was  made  eternal ; and  if  Adam  were  the  f:dher  of  the 
human  race,  as  is  alleged,  then  all  men  are  eternal,  and  this 
was  precisely  the  Buddhist  doctrine,  according  to  winch,  as 
pvcA'iously  saitl,  man  had  not  either  a beginning  or  an  end. 
']’ho  only  means  of  terminating  this  continual  round  of 
existence  was  by  entering  Nirrana,  and  which  excejrtional 
consummation — exceptional  because  eternal  existence  was 
the  rule,  aud  man  is  by  nature  said  to  move  about  in  the 
anamatagga  naimara,  or  in  the  immense  or  unborn  and  infinite 
metempsychosis — was  only  to  be  attained  by  undergoing 


61 


great  pains,  and  acting  according  to,  and  realising  tlie  several 
results  of,  the  four  suLlime  paths  of  virtue  preserihed  by 
Buddha,  namely,  Sonnt,  SuJcraclayann,  Anayami,  and  Arhat. 
A being  -\vIio  walks  thus  will  be  saved. 

I The  eloquent  Priest,  again  reverting  to  Christianit}^  said 

that  he  could  cite  another  instance  which  shewed  that  the 
God  whom  the  Christians  worshipped  was  fond  of  burean 
sacrifices:  namely, the  case  of  Jephthah’s daughter,  who  was, 
it  was  declared,  sacrificed  according  to  Jcphthali’s  vow.* 
rhongh  the  Protestants  tried  to  make  out  that  it  was  not 
literally  carried  out,  yet  he  would  refer  to  a note  against  that 
passage  appearing  in  the  Douay  Bible,  which  stated  that  the 
sacrifice  was  made  ; and  here  he  could  not  but  pass  a high 


• Bishop  Coienso,  of  Natal,  an  eminent  scholar  and  theologian  in  the 
English  Church,'  says  (in  his  Natal  Sermons,  page  .".■/.l)  that — “Itvas  a 
common  practice  among  the  Jews  in  the  times  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekitl 
to  offer  human  sacrifices.”  And  he  quotes  the  following,  among  other 
Biblical  i assages,  to  prove  it : — 

“And  they  built  the  high  places  of  B ah  which  are  in  the  valley  of  the 
Son  of  Ilinnom,  tocause  their  sons  and  their  daughters  to  pass  through 
the  fire  unto  Moloch  ; which  I ctmmanded  them  nor.” — Jt-r.  xxxii.  .S.o. 

“Then  he  took  his  elcest  son,  Ihutshould  have  reigned  in  his  stead,  and 
offered  him  for  a burnt-offering  upon  the  wall.” — II.  Kings  iii.  27. 

“For  the  children  of  Judah  have  done  evil  in  my  s ght,  saith  the  Lord; 
they  have  set  their  abomination,  in  the  house  wh  ch  is  called  by  My  name, 
to  pollute  it  ; and  they  have  built  the  lii^h  places  of  Ti  phtt,  which  is  in  the 
valley  of  the  Son  of  Ilinnom,  to  barn  their  sons  and  their  daughters 
in  the  fire,  which  I commanded  them  not.”— Jer.  vii.  30-31. 

“They  have  built  also  the  high  places  of  Baal,  to  burn  their  sons  with 
fire  for  burnt-offerings  unto  Baal,  which  I cummani'  d not.” — Jer.  xix.  6. 

“The  Israrlite-*  were  mingled  among  the  heathf n,  and  learned  their 
works  ; and  they  rerved  their  idols,  which  were  a snare  unto  them. . . For 
they  sacrificed  their  sons  arid  their  danghiers  unto  dev.ds ; :iu  1 shed 
innocent  blond.,  even  the  blood  of  their  sons  and  their  d ugaters, 
whom  they  sacrificed  uuto  the  idols  of  Canaan.” — Ps.  cvi.  .35-36-37. 

“ Moreover,  thou  hast  taken  thy  sons  and  thy  daughters,  whom  thou 
hast  borne  unto  me,  and  these  hast  thou  sacrificed  unto  them  to  be 
devoured.” — Ez.  xvi.  20. 

“ And  have  also  caused  their  sons,  whom  they  bear  unto  me,  to  pass 
for  them  through  the  fire  to  devour  them. . . . For  when  they  had  slain 
their  children  to  their  idols,  then  they  came  the  same  day  into  My 
sanctuary  to  profane  it.” — Ex.  xxiii.  37-39. 

“ Jephih-jh  vowed  to  the  Lord  . . . and  offered  up  for  a burnt-offering, 
or  sacrifice,  his  own  daughter.”— Judges  xi.  29-40. 


4—2 


52 


compliment  on  the  integrity  of  the  Roman  Catholics  in 
contradistinct-ou  to  Protestants,  who  were  always  in  the 
habit  of  altering  their  Pibles  whenever  it  suited  their 
purposes. 

In  Matthew  xii.  40  it  was  declared  that  Christ  would 
he  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  three  days  and  three  nights,  but 
did  not  the  event  falsify  this  prediction  ? Did  Christ  remain 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  tomb  ? lie  died  on  Friday, 
and  rose  on  the  Sunday  ; by  wliat  extended  interpretation 
could  that  be  made  to  mean  throe  days  and  three  nights  ? 
Even  Dr.  Claughton  had  failed  to  explain  this  away,  when  in 
a recent  controversy  with  a Secularist  the  latter  put  him 
this  question,  and  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  his  opponent 
would  be  more  successful.  He  knew  that  his  opponent’s 
party  would  attempt  some  soil  of  answer,  but  they  might  be 
sure  that  he  would  receive  the  answer  for. what  it  was 
-worth. 

It  was  well  known  amongst  Oriental  nations  that  good 
omens  were  invariably  the  harbingers  of  propitious  events,  and 
that  ill  omens  sufficiently  indicated  the  nature  of  the  events  that 
would  follow.  He  could  adduce  various  instances  to  prove 
the  truth  of  this  statement  from  several  ancient  books,  but 
one  would  suffice.  It  was  said  of  the  wife  of  the  Emperor 
Bimbisara  that  when  she  had  conceived  the  longing  she  had 
was  to  drink  the  blood  of  her  husband.  When  this  was 
satisfied,  she  gave  birth. to  a prince,  who  in  time  killed  his 
father,  the  Emperor,  and  obtained  the  Crown.  This  shewed 
liiat  an  ill  omen  prefigured  an  unpropitious  event.  And  what 
were  the  omens  about  the  time  of  the  birth  of  the  being  who 
came  to  save  the  world  ? Why,  a massacre  of  thousands  of 
little  innocents.  Did  not  this  incident  indicate  that  Christ 
was  a pretender  who  came  to  the  world  with  the  view  of 
casting  men  into  perdition?  Let  them,  therefore,  remember 
that  no  salvation  in  a future  state  could  reasonably  be 
•expected  by  believing  in  such  a being.  It  was  also  quite 
iclear  that  Christ  did  not  rise  again,  and  that  his  disciples 
made  a, way  with  his  body  at  night,  as  it  was  feared  that  they 
would  do.  To  this  part  of  the  subject  he  would  recur  on  the 
next  day. 


53 


Now  what  were  the  signs  that  preceded  Baddha’s  ministry 
on  earth  ? He  would  refer  to  a few  of  the  thirty-two  good 
and  ciieerfiil  omens  and  wonders  that  are  mentioned  in  the 
books  as  having  appeared  on  the  day  that  he  w'as  conceived 
of  Kiug  Sudhodhana  in  the  womb  of  the  Queen  Maliamaya,  on 
the  day  of  his  birth,  and  of  his  attaining  Buddahood, 
namely,  receiving  the  use  of  eyes,  ears,  and  legs  by  those 
who  had  been  blind,  deaf,  and  cripple  from  their  birth,  the 
mitigation  of  the  pains  in  the  several  hells,  the  allaying  of  the 
pangs  of  hunger  and  thirst  of  those  evil  spirits  that  had  been 
condemned  to  roam  about  in  the  universe,  and  the  curing  of 
all  hitherto  incurable  diseases.  Were  not  these  signs 
sufficient  to  shew  that  the  object  of  Buddha’s  ministry  was 
to  bring  happiness  and  true  bliss  to  this  world,  and  to 
introduce  into  it  a true  religion  ? How  Unlike  were  these  to 
those  hideous  omens  relating  to  Christ’s  birth,  which  it 
W'as  not  even  possible  to  mention  without  a shudder  and 
doing  violence  to  one’s  kindly  feelings.  If  his  opponents 
are  in  a position  to  shew  that  even  an  ant  had  died  in 
consequence  of  Buddha’s  birth,  he  would  give  them  his  word, 
— he  was  not  speaking  for  his  confreres — that  he  would  re- 
nounce Buddhism  as  speedily  as  possible.  This  unusually 
stirring  speech  was  brought  to  a close  by  the  Priest  in  these 
words  : — “ Christ  is  not  our  authority,  neither  is  Buddha. 
Weigh  w'ithout  prejudice  the  arguments  that  have  been 
adduced  on  either  side : consider  which  party  has  failed  to 
answer  the  questions  put  to  it,  and  hold  fast  the  faith  of  the 
reasonable  party.  I may  have  introduced  some  warmth  into 
the  discussion  of  the  subjects  : why  was  that  ? why  have  I 
been  so  earaest?  Simply  because  I so  love  the  truth  and 
see  such  an  immense  multitude,  to  whom  I have  to  offer  my 
best  thanks  for  theii*  patient  attention.’* 


54 


CONTINUATION  OF  THE  BUDDHIST  CONTBO- 
VERSY  AT  PANTURA. 


THE  REV.  F.  S.  SIRIMANNe’s  SPEECH. 

During  the  preceding  day,  Wednesday,  it  having  "been 
decided  at  a meeting  held  by  the  several  clergymen  assembled 
in  Pantnra,  that  a more  fluent  speaker,  and  one  whose 
language  “ will  be  understanded  of  the  common  people,  ’ 
should  address  the  multitude,  the  task  of  opening  the 
proceedings  of  the  second  or  the  last  day  fell  on  Mr  F S. 
Sirimanne,  a catechist  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society,  as 
he  was  considered,  next  to  Rev.  0.  Jayesinghe,  who  is  not  at 
all  controversially  inclined,  the  best  popular  speaker  in  the 
Singhalese  ranks  of  the  Christians.  Unknown  to  the  other 
intelligent  natives  of  this  Island,  this  follower  of  the  Church 
Missionaries  has,  since  the  termination  of  his  connection  with 
the  Buddhist  priests  of  Galpata  wlhare,  been  working  in 
comparative  seclusion  amongst  the  lower  classes  of  Colombo, 
holding  forth  against  Buddhism  and  expounding  the  Bible 
doctrine  of  salvation  to  the  hundreds  who  flock  around  to 
hear  the  loud  stentorian  tones  of  this  bland  speaker,  whenever 
he  addresses  them  at  the  different  places  appointed  for  “ open 
air  ” preaching. 

Mr.  Sirimanne  commenced  by  stating  that  in  the  same 
manner  as  fever  patients  had  a dislike  for  food  he  it  ever  so 
wholesome,  the  Priest,  who  was  sulfering  with  the  fever  of 
ignorance,  could  not  appreciate  the  value  of  the  precious 
doctrines  of  the  Bible ; and  had  raised  several  objections 
against  Christianity  because  the  truth  appeared  to  him  false. 
But  he  would  assure  them  that  not  a single  argument  had 
been  adduced  against  this  pure  religion  that  could  not  be 


55 


met  by  a boy  attending  any  Christian  school,  nowever,  as 
he  was  addressing  a nnmber  of  persons  who  were  totally 
unacquainted  with  Christianity,  he  would  try  and  answer  the 
Priest  as  fully  as  he  possibly  could  within  the  hour  iu  which 
he  had  to  speak.  But  before  proceeding  further,  he  had  to 
make  a few  remarks  in  regard  to  the  replies  given  by  the 
Priest  to  the  objections  the  Christian  party  had  raised  against 
Buddhism.  They  (the  Christians)  had  stated  that  Buddha 
had  distinctly  denied  the  existence  of  a soul,  and  quoted  the 
words  that  Gautama  had  made  use  of  when  speaking  on  this 
subject,  namely,  that  man  had  no  soul,  that  nothing  remained 
after  death,  and  that  nothing  went  to  another  state  of  exist- 
ence. But  what  were  the  replies  of  the  rev.  Priest  to  this  ? 
These  only  served  the  purpose  of  confirming  their  objections, 
and  proving  plainly  that  there  was  a soul.  Buddhists 
command  the  performance  of  meritorious  actions,  but  how 
did  these  avail  if  there  were  no  soul  that  goes  to  another 
world?  The  Priest  also  asked  them  to  state  the  nature  of  the 
soul,  the  existence  of  which  the  Christians  did  not  deny.  The 
soul  is  an  immaterial  and  invisible  substance  and.  has  no 
form ; therefore  to  ask  its  form  to  be  shewn  is  to  require 
that  which  was  not  possible.  Has  the  Priest  forgotten  that 
according  to  Buddhism  even  that  such  invisible  and  unnatu- 
ral beings  exist,  and  that  Ampa  Brahma  loka  is  said  to  be 
wholly  peopled  with  such  spirits.  If  the  whole  of  what 
constituted  man  perished  here  and  there  were  \xo  Atmn  that 
proceeded  to  another  world,  there  would  be  no  necessity  for 
a religion,  and  it  was  because  there  was  such  a state  of 
existence  hereafter  that  they  required  to  believe  on  the  true 
God,  with  the  view  of  attaining  eternal  happiness. 

And  now  with  reference  to  the  arguments  raised  against 
the  holy  Christian  religion  by  the  Priest.  Because  God  was 
called  a 'ealous  God  in  the  Bible,  it  did  not  follow  that  lie 
was  envious : he  was  a perfectly  holy  and  righteous  being. 
The  word  “ ‘ealous  ” as  applied  to  God  in  the  Bible  only 
signified  that  he  will  not  give  his  glory  to  another  person  or 
thing.  A great  deal  was  also  made,  by  the  Priest,  of  God’s 
command  to  Moses  to  perform  certain  miracles  before  Pharaoh, 
and  if  these  had  not  the  desu’ed  effect  of  letting  the  children 


66 


of  Israel  go,  to  perform  others;  such  orders  were  given 
simply  because  Pharaoh  was  exceedingly  haughty  and  ques' 
tioued  who  Jehovah  was,  when  Moses  first  took  his  message 
to  the  King  of  Egypt:  Giod  then  assured  Moses  that  he 
would  take  out  his  people  with  a mighty  liand  with  the  view 
of  shewing  both  Pharaoh  and  the  Israelites  who  he  was. 
Till  the  infliction  of  the  tenth  plague,  God  well  knew  what 
the  effect  of  each  previous  plague  would  be,  but  he  ordered 
Moses  to  work  these  different  miracles  and  send  the  various 
plagues  to  shew  his  might  to  Pharaoh,  and  to  all  succeeding 
gfenerations.  That  God  was  not  ignorant  of  Pharaoh’s 
purposes  is  clear  from  Exod.  iii.  19,  wherein  it  is  said,  “ And 
I am  sure  that  the  King  of  Eygpt  will  not  let  you  go,  no, 
not  by  a mighty  hand.” 

To  prove  that  God  was  fond  of  human  blood,  allu- 
sion had  also  been  made  by  the  Priest  to  the  circum- 
cision of  Moses’  son  by  Zipporah,  but  the  Priest  has, 
either  through  ignorance  or  deliberately,  distorted  facts. 
Zipporah  did  not,  as  was  alleged,  cast  the  foreskin  of  her  son 
at  God’s  feet,  but  at  Moses’.  Her  e.vclamation,  “ Surely  a 
bloody  husband  art  thou  to  me,”  clearly  sliews  this,  even  if 
fhe  use  of  the  non-honorific  third  personal  pronoun  in 
speaking  of  the  person  at  whose  feet  the  skin  was  thrown  in 
the  Singhalese  Bible  did  not  remove  all  doubt  on  this  point. 

With  reference  to  the  incident  mentioned  in  Judges  i.  19, 
that  tlie  Lord  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the 
valley  because  they  had  chariots  of  iron,  the  Friest  made  out 
the  reason  of  this  to  bo  that  Jehovah  feared  iron  chariots. 
But  it  was  not  so,  for  did  not  the  Lord  subdue  a host  of  900 
iron  chariots  only  very  sliortly  after;  and  comjiletely  destroy 
Pharaoh  and  his  iron  chariots  when  the  childi’en  of  Israel 
were  brought  out  of  Egypt?  it  was  not  because  the  Lord 
feared  iron  chariots  that  Judah  did  not  meet  with  success  in 
this  instance,  but  simply  because  -he  lacked  faith  in  God. 
He  was  able  to  defeat  the  enemy  only  when  he  trusted  in 
God;  but  no  sooner  did  he  lose  faith  and  fear  iron  chariots, 
than  he  was  discomfited.  All  the  events  mentioned  in  the 
Bible,  besides  being  historically  tme,  were  so  ordered  by  the 
omuiscient  God  with  the  view  of  reveahng  spiritual  lessons 


57 


to  future  generations;  and  tliis  incident  was  recorded  in 
order  to  prove  the  power  and  importance  of  faith. 

In  attempting  to  compare  the  Buddhist  doctrine  of  the 
eternity  of  man  with  the  Bible  account  of  the  creation,  the 
Priest,  ^vith  the  view  of  misleading  the  ignorant,  had  stated 
some  ridiculous  absurdities.  His  argument  was  that  because 
Grod  breathed  into  Adam’s  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  therefore 
it  was  a portion  of  Grod’s  soul  that  was  thus  breathed  ; and  as 
Grod  was  everlasting,  that  man,  who  only  became  a living 
soul  after  this  infusion  of  the  breath  of  life,  was  also  Avithout 
beginning  or  end.  What  a ridiculous  inference  ! The 
passage  referred  to  only  meant  that  Grod  ga^m  life  to  man 
and  deposited  the  soul  in  him.  There  was  nothing  at  all 
there  to  shew  that  Grod  parted  with  a portion  of  his  own 
soul.  What  man  there  present  would  attach  the  meaning 
sought  to  be  put  upon  this  verse  by  the  Priest  to  the  homely 
Singhale  e words,  “ blow  some  oil  into  his  ear  ?”  Who  will 
asso  iate  the  idea  of  blowdng  a portion  of  one’s  Lving  p.inci- 
ple  with  this  injunction  to  infuse  a little  od  nto  another’s  ear  ? 
The  meaning  of  the  expression  in  the  Bible,  “ brea..h.ng  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,”  was  also  the  same. 

Now  as  regards  the  sacrifice  of  Jephthah’s  daughter, 
this  is  a sub  ect  that  has  been  frequently  brought  forward 
by  the  rev.  Priest,  and  on  every  occasion  the  reply  that 
she  was  not  killed  and  sacrificed  was  given ; and  yet 
the  Priest  does  not  seem  to  be  satisfied.  But  suppos- 
ing even  that  she  had  been  sacrificed,  no  blame  attaches 
to  God,  because  he  was  no  party  to  J^phthah’s  rash  vow. 
Human  sacrifices  were  explicitly  prohibited  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures;  and  provision  was  made  in  the  Jewish  code  to 
meet  tiie  case  of  a ].erson  making  such  a rash  vow,  which 
was  to  pay  a sum  oi  money  as  a ransom,  and  thus  save 
the  life  of  the  fellow  being.  It  is  nowhere  stated  in  the  Bible 
that  Jepht  ah’s  daughter  was  killed,  but  what  appeared  there 
was  that  she  bewailed  two  months  for  her  vii’ginity,  not  for 
her  death.  And  it  was  also  said  that  her  father  did  unto 
iier  accordiug  to  his  vow,  and  she  knew  no  man,  and  that  the 
daughters  of  Israel  went  yearly  to  lament  the  dargliter  of 
Jephthah,  four  days  in  a year.  This  ceremony  nas  gone 


68 


throngli  two  months  before  the  ac  omplishment  of  the  vow 
ami  was  periodically  repeated.  So  it  is  quite  clear  that  from 
that  day  she  only  lived  a virgin  ; and  th^'iefore  to  say  that 
Jephthah’s  daughter  was  sacrificed  by  cutting  off  her  neck  was 
a falsehood. 

Another  argument  raised  by  the  Priest  against  Chris- 
tianity was  that  Christ’s  prediction  that  he  would  be  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth  three  days  :md  three  i.ights  was  lalsified 
1 y his  having  remained  in  the  grave  only  from  Friday  till 
Sunday  morning.  But  anyone  acquainted  with  the  Jewish 
modes  of  calculation  will  see  that  there  is  no  di  erepancy  at  all 
be'  ween  the  prediction  and  its  fulfilment.  The  phrase  “ three 
days  and  three  nights”  was  usel  by  the  Jews  to  denote  what 
is  generally  understood  as  ihree  days.  If  was  so  used  in  Gen. 
vii.  12,  where  it  is  said  that  “ ti  e rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty 
days  and  forty  nights which  wms  the  same  as  the  expression  in 
17  V.  that  the  flood  was  forty  days  upon  the  earth.  In  the 
same  manner,  if  it  had  been  said  that  Christ  remained  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth  three  days,  which  is  the  same,  according 
to  Jewish  idiom,  as  saying  three  days  and  three  nights, 
there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  at  all,  for  surely  the 
Priest  will  not  deny  that  Christ  remained  in  the  grave  on 
Friday,  Saturday,  and  Sunday.  True,  he  wms  not  in  the 
tomb  either  the  whole  of  Friday  or  Sunday,  but  according 
to  Jewish  qjhraseology  any  portion  of  a day  was  spoken  of 
as  a wliole  day,  and  numerous  instances  can  be  cited  from 
ancient  writers  in  support  of  such  an  usage.  And  so  much 
for  the  vaunted  objection  which  was  alleged  to  have  beeu 
addm  ed  by  an  able  European,  and  with  which  the  Priest 
intended  to  make  short  work  of  Christianity. 

In  order  to  shew  that  Christ’s  birth  was  anything  but  bene- 
ficial to  mankind,  the  Priest  mentioned  the  massacre  of  the 
innocents  as  an  ill  omen,  which  indicated  that  something  the 
reverse  of  good  would  result  by  his  birth.  The  Priest  w^as  liow- 
ever  mistaken  : no  ill  omen  attended  the  birth  of  Christ;  and  it 
was  nowhere  said  that  thousands  of  children  were  killed  at 
his  birth.  The  Priest  said  so  either  with  the  view  of  deceiving 
those  who  were  present  or  being  ignorant  of  the  facts.  Two  years 
after  Christ’s  birth,  it  was  perfectly  true  that  the  wicked  King 


Cd 


Ilerocl,  having  heard  from  the  magicians  that  Christ  would 
become  a mighty  King,  caused  many  infants  of  two  years 
old  to  be  massacred,  apprehending  some  danger  to  his  crown ; 
but  by  this  massacre  no  injury  resulted  to  the  infants, 
because  as  there  is  no  doubt  that  their  souls  went  to  heaven, 
it  only  expedited  their  enjoyment  of  eternal  bliss ; and 
as  for  the  parents,  why  it  may  have  been  the  means  ol 
bringing  them  to  repentance,  and  thereby  to  everlasting 
happiness. 

These  were  all  the  remarks  he  (the  Catechist)  .had 
to  make  in  regard  to  the  objections  raised  against  Christianity ; 
but  he  now  saw  a very  short  way  of  ending  this  contro- 
versy, and  would  tell  his  hearers  what  it  was.  The  rev. 
Priest  had  in  his  last  lecture  said  if  it  could  be  shewn 
that  even  an  ant  had  been  killed  at  Buddha’s  birth,  that  he 
would  renounce  Buddhism.  He  (the  Catechist)  was  in  a 
position  to  shew  that  greater  beings  than  ants  had  been 
deprived  of  their  lives  in  consequence  of  Buddha’s  birth,  and 
if  the  Priest  were  a man  of  his  word  he  ought  at  once  to 
renounce  Buddhism : then  would  this  controversy  be 

satisfactorily  ended,  and  their  object  accomplished. 

lie  would  now  enumerate  some  of  the  many*  instances  in 
which  death  ensued  on  account  of,  or  by  means  of,  Buddha, 
anil  would  beg  of  the  Buddliist  portion  of  his  audience 
particularly  to  lend  him  a patient  hearing,  as  they  had  heard 
what  their  champion  had  said — that  he  would  forsake  Bud- 
dhism if  it  could  be  proved  that  even  an  ant  had  been  killed 
at  Buddha’s  birth.  In  the  first  place,  Buddha’s  own  mother 
died  seven  days  after  giving  birth  to  this  extraordinary  baby, 
who  is  said  to  have  been  able  to  walk  and  speak  very  jdainly 
at  the  moment  of  his  birth.  The  wonder  is  that  the  mother 
of  such  a gigantic  monster  should  have  lived  even  for  seven 
days.  Thus  they  will  see  that  the  death  of  the  queen  of  the 
highest  emperor  of  India  was  caused  at  the  instance  of 
Buddlia,  and  was  not  her  death  of  greater  consequence  than 
that  of  an  ant  ? Secondly,  it  appears  in  the  sacred  books  of 
the  Buddhists  that  men  and  even  beasts  died  by  the  roaring 
of  lions  : these  lions  exist  even  at  the  present  day  in  the 
Himalaya  Mountains,  situated  to  the  north  of  India,  though 


60 


•we  in  Cej  lon  cannot  even  Lear  their  roaring ; if  it  were  so 
and  the  aucieuts  did  die  by  hearing  these  poor  lions  roar,  how 
many  millions  of  creatures  ■would  have  perished  at  hearing 
the  roai’ing  of  the  lion  Gautama,  'W'hose  exclamation 
V/'/v«  un/ii  lolcifisa  jotiho  ham  a-vni  lohasm  scttho 
usnti  Zob/.w/,”  just  after  liis  birth,  is  said  to  have  been 
Leaid  by  the  gods  of  the  uppermost  Brahma  world.  Numer- 
ous other  instances  of  the  deaths  of  men  and  beasts  caused  on 
account  of  Buddha  could  be  cited,  but  lie  thought  those  he 
had  just  mentioned  were  sufficient  for  the  present.  They 
had  all  heard  the  construction  put  upon  the  so-called  good 
and  evil  omens  attendant  on  the  birth  of  Christ  and  Buddha 
by  the  Priest.  lie  did  not  agree  with  it;  and  before  arriving 
at  any  conclusion,  he  would  entreat  his  iiearers  to  hear  the 
Christians’  interpretation  of  these  signs.  Christ  came  into 
the  world  to  destroy  the  piower  of  sin,  and  to  set  up  the 
kingdom  of  righteousness.  The  subjects  of  the  kingdom 
of  sin  opposed  the  Savioia*  by  ind  omens,  as  this 
Priest  terms  them,  and  did  their  best  to  retain  those 
sinful  pleasures  in  which  they  revelled.  It  was  only  natural 
that  this  should  be  so.  They  could  not  possibly  expect  a 
diliereut  reception,  and  that  was  the  reason  for  the  so-called 
bad  omens.  But  in  the  case  of  Buddha  it  was  ditferent. 
He  was  a sinner,  as  other  men  were,  and  came  to  this  woi’ld 
to  encourage  vice,  and  enlarge  its  kingdom,  and  no  wonder 
that  this  sinful  world  w'elcomed  him  with  good  omens,  just 
as  drunkards  would  receive  with  open  arms  one  of  their  owr, 
number,  but  S}»urn  a teetotaller. 

And  now,  with  reference  to  Buddhism  Before  em- 
bracing any  religion,  it  is  the  duty  of  each  one  to  examine 
ivhether  the  books  on  which  that  religion  rests  are  au- 
thentic or  not  Buddhism  that  prevails  in  this  Island 
has  for  its  authority  only  the  Three  Pitakas.  and  it 
was,  therefore,  incumbent  on  them  to  find  out  what  these 
books  were,  when  tiiey  were  written,  and  whether  they  did 
contain  the  doctrines  of  Buddha  as  propounded  by  him  ; in 
short,  whether  there  is  any  testimony  for  their  authenticity, 
lie  will  tell  them,  however,  that  these  Pitakas  were  committed 
to  writing  not  in  the  land  where  Buddha  is  said  to  have  lived, 


61 


not  by  those  who  beard  bim  preacb,  and  not  during  bis  life« 
time,  or  that  of  those  who  were  bis  contemporaries;  bui, 
according  to  Mahawanm  and  8arasa)ujraha,  four  hundred  and 
fifty  years  after  Buddha’s  death,  at  a convocation  of  priests 
in  Aluwihare  of  Matella  in  this  very  Island.  Up  to  that  day 
Buddha’s  sayings  were  transmitted  orally,  and  what  weight 
could  be  attached,  the  Catechist  imploringly  asked  of  his 
audience,  to  such  documents,  which  simply  stated  that  some 
four  or  five  hundred  years  ago  there  lived  a sage  in  a distant 
land  called  Dambhadiva,  etc. ; and  he  is  said  to  have  ex- 
pounded such  and  such  doctrines  ? Would  a last  will,  with 
such  meagre  evidence,  be  considered  genuine  in  a Court  of 
Justice  ? If  not,  how  are  th  y to  receive  as  true  documents 
which  concern  matters  of  such  great  moment  as  the 
salvation  of  men’s  souls?  It  is  also  stated  in  Buddhist 
books  that  Gautama  attained  Buddahood  by  the  observance 
of  the  ten  Paramita  (or  sacrifices) ; and  so  it  will  be  well  to 
see  whether  those  rites  or  offerings  could  have  the  effect 
which  they  are  said  to  have  had.  The  first  Paramita  or 
observance  they  read  of  as  having  been  performed  by  Buddha 
with  the  view  of  accumulating  m<  rit,  and  attaining  the  Budda- 
hood, is  Dana  paranita,  or  almsgiving,  which,  besides  others, 
consisted  of  the  extraordinary  offering  of  his  eyes,  head,  flesh, 
blood,  wives  and  children. 

Many  of  those  present  knew  with  what  love,  care, 
and  attention  a daughter  is  brought  up  by  the  parents ; 
how  at  her  proper  age,  whatever  their  affection  to 
each  other  may  be,  when  she  is  given  in  marriage 
to  an  utter  stranger,  the  attachment  to  her  parents  gives 
place  to  love  for  her  newly  found  husband,  and  how  the  wife 
looks  solely  to  her  husband  for*  her  comfort  and  sustenance- 
They  were  also  not  unacquainted  with  the  fact  that  the  birth 
of  children  only  tended  to  strengthen  this  bond  of  union,  and 
form  a happy  family.  And  what  will  they  think  of  a father, 
living  in  such  happiness,  giving  up  his  children  without  anj^ 
hesitation  or  sorrow  to  a wandering  hermit,  amidst  the  cries 
and  lamentations  of  his  wife  and  the  children  themselves, 
without  any  inquiry  as  to  what  he  was  going  to  do  with 
them,  simply  because  he  came  to  the  door  of  this  happy  abode, 


62 


and  sail! — may  be  with  some  base  motive  of  selling  them  aa 
slaves  or  otherwise  maltreating  them — Give  me  your  two 
(.'liildren  as  an  alms  offering,  and  you  will  attain  Budda- 
hoodr  Not  satisfied  w’itn  tliis  if  even  the  wife  be  thus 
sacrideed,  what  would  tliey  think  cf  such  a husband?  Were 
inese  meritorious  acts?  Was  it  meritorious  to  break  the 
nearts  ci  wves  and  cniidren  anl  bring  desolation  and  misery 
lO  a happy  home  r If  >.t  were,  what  actions  will  they 
enumerate  under  the  head  of  demerds  or  sins?  But  yet 
Gautama  dm  an  tins,  and  tnis  was  the  moans  he  adopted  to 
attain  Buddahood.  Ilcw  often  did  he  so  give  up  his  wives 
and  children;  Was  it  a hundred  times?  No!  A thousand 
times?  Oh  no  I As  the  science  ot  figures  cannot  sufficiently  ex- 
press the  number  of  wives  and  children  so  sacrificed,  in  order  to 
convey  to  tne  mind  ol  tue  reader  an  approximate  idea  of  the 
cumber  offered,  i*^  13  saia  Tn  Buddhist  works  that  it  the  ropefi 
and  string<5  with  wliicn  the  wives  ana  children  01  Buddha  who 
were  sacrificed  by  him  were  tied  witu,  were  collected  into 
a heap,  its  iieigiit  would  be  a million  times  greater  tnan  that 
ot  Mahameru  whicn  he  (the  Cateciiist)  would  remind  them 
was  Si  OUO  yoduns  high — and  iG  mue?  went  to  make  up  one 
yoduna.  This  will  give  them  a tolerably-  good  idea  ci  the 
number  of  wives  and  children  sacrificed.  Did  his  heareiB 
believe  tliat  any  happy  state  could  be  attained  by  the  com- 
mission Ol  ruch  barbarous  and  cruel  actions  There  would 
be  an  end  to  all  social  happiness,  and  to  even  the  continuance 
of  the  world,  if  everybody  set  about  perpetrating  such 
honible  crimes  as  those  which  Buddha  is  said  to  have  done 
to  attain  Biuhlj  hood.  But  these  were  not  all  tne  offering® 
he  made  to  gain  this  end.  It  is  said  that  Ihe  number  cf  his 
eyes  ho  sacrificed  was  more  than  the  stars  of  the  sky,  the 
quantity  of  blood  he  gave  was  more  than  the  water  in  the 
ocean,  and  tho  {uautity  of  flesh  was  greater  than  ihe  sub- 
stance of  this  earth,  and  that  of  his  heads  was  more  than  the 
height  of  Mahameru.  What  a mass  of  men  must  have  been 
killed  to  offer  so  many  eyes,  hands  and  heads  ! Even  if,  as  is 
declared,  it  was  Gautama’s  own  eyes  and  hands  which  were 
offered,  self-destruction  was  quite  as  had  as  killing  a third 
person,  and  so  the  heinousuess  of  the  crime  was  the  same, 


63 


and  wliat  do  they  think  of  a leing  who  committed  such 
villainy  to  attain  a state  of  bliss  ? 

Buddha  is  also  said  to  have  been  omniscient : but  they 
will  find  from  instances  he  will  presently  mention  that  his 
omniscience  was  of  a peculiar  nature,  and  that  it  represented 
dead  people  as  living,  and  those  who  were  actually  living  as 
being  dead.  For  instance,  in  Mahawage  it  is  said  that  Buddha, 
at  the  commencement  of  his  ministry,  did  not  consider  it 
worth  while  to  preach  Bana,  as  it  was  his  impression  that 
there  was  not  a single  being  on  earth  who  could  understand 
his  doctrines  and  be  edified  by  them  ; but  shortly  after  it  is 
stated  that  he  was  the  means  of  sending  twenty-four  Asanka 
souls  to  Nirwana.  "Was  it  not  plain  from  this  that  Buddha 
did  not  possess  any  omniscient  power.  If  fie  fiad  he  would 
not  have  failed  to  see  even  one  of  these  twenty- loui’  Asankc 
beings  who  were  edified  by  Buddha  discourses.  Then 
again  after  klaha  Brahma  convinced  Gautama  of  the  falsity 
of  this  idea  he  cherished,  that  there  was  no  human  being  or 
earth  competent  enough  to  understand  his  doctrines,  he 
decided  on  preaching  his  Dhamma  to  Alarakalama  as  being 
the  most  intelligent  man  alive.  But  did  he  carry  out  his 
wishes?  No;  the  All- wise  Buddha  found  on  inquiry  that 
Alarakalama  had  been  dead  some  days,  and  there  was  no 
possibibility  of  preaching  to  him.  Ilis  second  choice  then 
fell  on  Ud'l  ikarama,  but  the  obiect  of  this  selection  also  shared 
the  same  fate.  On  making  inquiry  for  this  sage,  he  found 
that  he  too  had  befen  dead  some  time.  If  they  believed  this 
helpless  being,  who  committed  so  many  and  terrible  mistakes, 
and  Avho  often  had  to  be  corrected  by  third  parties,  to  be 
all-wise,  who  would  not  be  omniscient  ? Lastly,  Buddhists 
pray  to,  or  take  refuge  in,  Buddha,  Dfiarma. — that  is  in  his 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Three  Bitakas — and  in  the  priest- 
hood, in  the  words  which  his  Buddhist  friends  often 
repeat ; — 

Buddlian  mrannm  (faccnmi, 

Dhamman  saranam  gacexmiy 

Sangham  saranam  gaccami. 

But  what  was  the  use  in  taking  refuge,  or  sarana,  in  either 
of  these  ? Was  there  any  protection  to  be  gained  by  it? 


64 


In  tlie  first  place,  as  there  is  no  sun-light  when  there  is  m 
sun,  so  they  could  not  expect  any  protection  from  a being 
who  was  non-existent.  Buddha  is  said  to  have  attained  the 
state  of  annihilation,  and  how  could  he  become  any  refuge  ? 
It  was  plain,  therefore,  that  this  first  sarana,  or  refuge,  was 
of  no  avail.  The  second — the  refuge  in  Dhamma  or  Bana 
hooks — was  no  better;  how  could  a man  take  refuge  in  books? 
It  is  rather  that  the  books  are  under  the  care  and  protection 
of  men,  who  get  them  transcribed  into  olas,  and  keep  them 
hound  up  safely  in  an  almirah,  or  chest,  to  prevent  their 
being  destroyed.  Was  it’  not  clear  that  this  refuge,  or 
sarana,  too  was  of  no  avail  ? And  as  regards  the  third 
sarana — or  the  refuge  in  priests — he  need  not  say  much. 
Between  the  two  sects  of  the  Buddhist  priesthood — the 
Amerapura  and  Siam — a controversy  has  been  raging  for 
some  time,  each  trying  to  prove  that  the  other  has 
no  JJpasampada,  ordination,  sarana,  or  Sila,  or  many  other 
observances — in  short,  that  they  were  no  priests.  First,  then, 
they  had  to  decide. as  to  whether  they  priests,  about  which 

even  amongst  themselves  there  were  such  great  disputes ; and 
even  if  they  could  come  to  a decision,  what  availed  it  ? The 
immorality  of  the  priests  was  well  known  ; and  was  it  not 
like  the  blind  leading  the  blind  for  the  Buddhist  priests, 
men  full  of  lust,  envy,  and  ignorance  as  they  were,  to  attempt 
to  guide  the  people  who  foolishly  took  refuge  in  the  Sangha, 
or  the  priesthood  ? Now  in  conclusion,  he  would  remind  his 
auditory  that  not  a word  had  been  said  by  the  reverend 
priest  to  explain  the  confusing  and  absurd  doctrine  of  Patic- 
casamuppada,  nor  as  to  the  Buddhist  Afwirt,  and  would  entreat 
of  them  to  consider,  without  prejudice,  all  that  he  sail,  seek 
the  truth  so  that  it  may  be  found,  and  after  proving  all 
things,  hold  fast  that  which  was  good. 

The  Buddhist’s  Reply. 

IHE  REV.  MIGETTUWATTe’s  THIRD  SPEECH. 

The  Priest  Migettuwatte,  here  rising,  said  that  he  had 
invited  the  several  learned  priests  there  present  to  the  con- 
fc-oversy,  believing  that  some  able  opponent  would  appear  on 
the  Christian  side,  and  that  their  assistance  would  be  required 


65 


to  refute  the  arguments  that  might  be  adduced,  but  having 
been  surprisingly  disappointed  in  this,  he  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  give  his  friends  further  trouble  by  detaining 
them  longer.  Before,  however,  making  any  comments  on 
the  lecture  of  his  friend  the  Catechist,  he  would  say  a few 
it^ords  in  regard  to  some  remarks  that  fell  from  his  opponent 
m a previous  occasion.  He  (the  Rev.  Silva)  stated  that 
Buddhism  was  not  worthy  of  credence  as  it  likened  man 
anto  a frog,  serpent,  or  a dog.  By  making  this  assertion 
his  opponent  not  only  damaged  his  own  cause,  but  betrayed 
his  ignorance  of  the  Christian  Bible,  of  which  he  professed  to 
be  a preacher.  For  on  turning  to  Ecclesiastes  iii.  19,  they 
would  find  it  stated,  “ For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of 
men  befalleth  beasts,  even  one  thing  befalleth  them,  as  the 
one  dieth  so  dieth  the  other,  yea  they  have  all  one  breath  ; so 
that  a man  hath  no  pre-eminence  above  a beast : for  all  is 
vanity.”  And  now  he  would  like  to  know  where  in  Bud- 
dhist scriptures  a single  passage  occurred  Likening  man  unto 
a beast. 

His  opponent,  in  arguing  that  Buddhism  was  not  a 
proper  religion  to  embrace  because  human  beings  were 
likened  unto  beasts,  was  only  arguing  against  Christianity, 
and  he  was  thankful  for  the  assistance  from  this  unexpected 
quarter.  He  must  say,  however,  that  he  was  sure  this 
ignorance  of  the  Bible  would  have  cost  him  his  place  if  the 
Principal  of  the  Society  to  which  his  opponent  belonged 
had  been  present  on  the  occasion.  And  if  the  ignorance  of 
his  opponent  was  so  great  in  matters  pertaining  to  his  own 
religion,  the  audience  would  be  able  to  form  an  idea  of  the 
extent  of  his  knowledge  of  Buddhism,  against  which  he 
would  take  this  opportunity  of  mentioning  that  not 
a single  tenable  argument  had  been  raised  by  his 
opponent. 

An  attempt  was  made  by  him  on  the  previous  Tuesday  to 
depreciate  Buddhism,  by  declaring  that  the  doctrine  of 
Faticcasamnppada  was  an  absurdity  and  a confusion  of  thought. 
He  would  now,  as  promised  on  that  day,  try  to  make  this  sub- 
ject a little  clearer.  Even  the  sage  Buddhaghosa  was  so 


5 


66 


conscious  of  tlie  difficulty  of  rightly  explaining  this  abstruse 
doctrine  that  he  expressed  himself  thus  in  his  work 
Visuddhimarga 

Vattu  hamo  aliam  ajja 
Paccagakara  vannamm 
Patittham  na  adhignceami 
Ajjagidho  na  saga  ran  : — 

the  literal  meaning  of  which  is,  *•  that  as  there  is  no  support 
to  one  who  has  fallen  into  the  ocean,  I who  am  fallen  into 
the  sea  of  Pahccasaniappadn  doctrine  have  no  support ; ” hut 
the  idea  sought  to  be  conveyed  by  this  stanza  is  that  it  was 
only  tliose  wise  men  who  have  attained  the  arihat  that  were 
able  to  fully  comprehend  this  theory,  and  that  others,  not  so 
fortunate,  could  not  easily  understand  it.  And  the  attempt 
made  by  his  opponent,  who  professed  to  fully  understand  it, 
to  carp  at  Paticcasamuppada,  of  which  even  the  great  and 
learned  commentator,  well-versed  in  the  Three  Pitakas,  spoke 
in  such  terms  as  those  he  had  above  quoted,  can  only  be 
compared  to  the  barking  of  a dog  envious  at  the  splendour  of 
the  moon.  That  his  opponent  had  not  the  remotest  idea  of 
this  doctrine  of  causation  was  plainly  shewn  by  the  example 
of  the  father  begetting  the  son,  and  the  son  begetting  the 
father  he  adduced  in  illustration  of  it.  True,  there  was  an 
instance  of  such  a circumlocutory  genesis  in  the  Christian 
Scriptures  which  he  would  advert  to  on  a future  occasion. 
He  would  now,  however,  endeavour  to  explain  to  the  best  of 
his  ability  what  this  doctrine  of  Paticcasamappada  is,  and 
would  beg  of  the  multitude  to  give  him  an  attentive 
hearing. 

The  doctrine  of  causation  is  enunciated  in  the  folio  win  a: 
passage  : — Avijja  paccaga  samkhara,  samkhara  paccaga  vin~ 
nanam,  vinnana  paccaga  nama  rupam,  nama  rupa  paccaga 
salagatanam,  salagatana  paccaga  phasso,  phassa  paccaga  vedana, 
cedana  paccaga  tanha,  tanha  paccaga  upadanam,  upadana  paccaga 
bhavo,  hhava  paccaga  jati,  jati  paccaga  jaratnaranam  soka^ 
paridem  dukkha  domanass  upagasa  sambhavanti. 

The  gist  of  which  is  that  in  consequence  of,  or  from 


67 


avi/ja,  samkharm  are  produced,  in  consequence  of,  or  from 
aamkharas,  vinana  is  produced,  in  consequence  of,  or  from 
vinnana,  nama  rupa  is  produced,  etc.  In  short,  what  Buddha 
evidently  meant  to  say  was  that  in  regular  succession  all 
these  are  produced  causatively  one  from  the  other,  hut  this  of 
course  his  opponent  could  not  understand,  which  was  the 
reason  for  his  stating  the  ridiculous  nonsense  they  heard, 
that  snmkhnm  was  produced  from  a thing  called  (tvijja  which 
existed  independent  of  a sentient  being,  and  that  rinnava 
was  produced  from  samkhara.  To  shew  the  incorrectness  of 
his  opponent’s  views,  and  the  further  elucidation  of  this 
subject,  he  would  give  them  a short  example.  Though, 
when  it  is  said  curd  is  made  of  milk,  butter  ./row  curd,  and 
ghee  from  butter,  and  each  of  these  is  different  from  the 
other,  yet  there  can  be  no  possible  doubt  that  all  these,  curd, 
milk,  butter  and  ghee,  existed  together.  In  like  manner, 
there  never  existed  avijja  alone  without  a sentient  being,  n'" 
samkhara  alone,  independent  of,  or  without  avijja,  nor  th^ 
two  nama  rupa  by  themselves,  independent  of,  or  without 
samkhara.  That  all  these  exist  together  is  certain.*  And 
there  was  no  doubt  that  his  opponent  put  a different  con- 
struction altogether  on  the  words  that  Buddha  uttered  to 
shew  the  manner  of  the  transmigratory  movements  of  a 
sentient  being  through  Samsara  or  metempsychosis.  All  his 
opponent’s  utterances  on  this  subject  reminded  him  of  the 
babbling  of  a madman.  The  Pattlmnapprakarana  of  Ah- 
hidarma  also  has  the  following  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
Paticcasamuppada : — 

Moham  paticcasampaijuttaka  khanda  patisamlhikkhane  pat- 
tum  patticca  sahctuka  kliandhanam,  etc. 

And  it  signifies  that  the  skhandhas  connected  with  the 
ignorance  {i.e.,  of  the  present  existence)  and  skhandhas  con- 
nected with  the  form  of  the  object  (which  he  sees  at  the 
point  of  death)  are  born. 


* The  most  learned  Buddh'sfc  with  whom  I conver?ed  in  the  East 
denied  utterly  the  existence  of  matter.  It  was  only  an  appearance,  a 
shadow.  The  only  two  realities  in  the  universe  were  causation  and 
spiiitual  substance. 


5—2 


68 


In  order  to  sliew  that  samhharas  never  come  to  ex- 
istence alone,  the  work  entitled  Visudhimarga  says 
thus  : — 

Samlihara  Tiamma  paccayena  ca  upanissaya  paccmyena  ca 
paccaya  honti,  etc. 

That  is,  mmhhams  become  sources  of  vinnana  from 
the  source  of  kamma  (or  deed),  or  from  source  and 
association. 

The  following  passage  will  also  shew  that  vinnana  does  not 
come  into  existence  before  nama  rupa,  but  simultaneously 
with  them  : — 

Vipaka  vinnana  sahajati  anna  manna  nissaya  sampayutta 
vipaka  ahara  indriya  atthi  avigata  paccaychi  navadha  paccaya 
honti. 

The  purport  of  this  is  that  the  productive  vinnana  is 
produced  from  nine  different  sources  of  coeval  birth,  mutual, 
causal,  associating,  joined  to  each  other,  productive,  objective, 
existing  in  perception  and  separated.  .If  one  thus  under- 
stands and  can  comprehend  this  abstruse  doctrine  aright,  it 
will  be  impossible  for  him  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
nama  rupa  came  into  existence  after  vinnana,  and  the  en- 
deavour of  his  opponent,  with  such  a limited  knowledge,  to 
fathom  this  mysterious  doctrine  of  Paticcasamuppada  was 
like  the  roaming  of  a blind  elephant  in  a thick  jungle. 
He  woiild  here  remind  those  present  that  no  explanation  had 
been  given  by  his  opponent  of  what  his  party  understood  by 
Atma,  if  it  was  not  the  cleaving  to  existence  of  which  he  had 
already  spoken.  He  would  again  impress  on  them  that  the 
being  who  according  to  them  (the  Buddhists)  suffered  here- 
after was  not  a different  one.  Each  continued  his  indi- 
viduality. All  knew  themselves  in  the  future  life.  Why 
the  Christians  put  the  construction  that  they  did  on  the 
Buddhist  doctrine,  viz.,  that  it  was  a different  being  that 
suffered  in  a future  state  for  actions  committed  in  this 
Life,  was  owing  to  their  incapability  to  understand  this 
subject  properly. 

And  now  before  proceeding  to  meet  the  objections  of  hii 
friend  the  Catechist,  he  would  make  another  remark  in  refer- 
ence to  Christianity.  In  I.  Corinthians  xv.  22-28,  it  was 


69 


said,  “ For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  he 
made  alive  ” — which  statement  clearly  shewed — and  it  is  the 
belief  of  these  Christians — that  by  believing  on  Christ 
every  one  shall  escape  the  punishment  of  eternal  hell-fire  and 
obtain  everlasting  happiness.  But  there  was  another  passage 
in  the  Bible  which  had  quite  a different  meaning,  and  he 
would  like  to  know  how  the  Christians  reconciled  two  such 
diametrically  contradictory  declarations.  He  referred  to 
Matt.  XXV.  41-46,  wherein  appeared  the  words — “ Then 
shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart 
from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels  : For  I was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave 
me  no  meat.  I was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  no  drink : I 
was  a stranger,  and  ye  took  me  not  in ; naked,  and  ye 
clothed  me  not ; sick  and  in  prison,  and  ye  visited  me  not. 
Then  shall  they  also  answer  him  saying,  Lord,  when  saw  we 
thee  an  hungered,  or  athirst,  or  a stranger,  or  in  prison,  and 
did  not  minister  to  thee  ? Then  shall  he  answer  them 
saying.  Verily  I say  unto  you,  inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  to 
one  of  the  least  of  these,  ye  did  it  not  to  me.  And  these 
shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment ; but  the 
righteous  unto  life  eternal.”  If  words  have  any  meaning, 
this  clearly  shews  that  men’s  salvation  does  not  depend  upon 
belief  in  Christ  alone ; but  to  attain  happiness  hereafter  it 
was  necessary  to  perform  righteous  or  good  actions.  Then 
what  did  Christians  mean  by  declaring  that  all  wh(; 
believe  on  Christ’s  name  would  be  saved  ? If  one  portion 
of  the  Bible  so  hopelessly  contradicts  another  portion,  which 
om  were  they  to  accept  as  true  ? It  was  certain  that  both 
/statements  could  not  be  true,  and  which  was  the  false  one? 
What  right  had  they  then  to  believe  in  a Bible  which  con- 
tained so  many  contradictions  ? and  were  they  not  justified 
in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  a religion  based  upon 
such  a hook,  was  false  ? * 


* Among  discrepancies,  contradictions,  and  irreconcilable  passages  in 
the  Bible,  the  following  were  selected  by  the  Bev.  M.  Wollaston,  aq 
English  clergyman,  of  Melbourne,  Au.-tralia 


70 


Now  •natli  reference  to  the  remarks  made  by  his  friend, 
the  Catechist.  A more  desultory  and  unscholar-like  speech 
he  had  never  heard,  and  it  would  be  usele  s to  even  touch  on 
those  parts  of  his  discourse  which  were  quite  irrelevant  to  the 
issue,  as  the  curing  of  a fever  patient,  etc.  It  had  been  said 
by  the  Catechist  that  the  Buddhist  party  had  only  confirmed 
the  objections  raised  against  PancaMandha  by  the 
Christians,  but  this  was  totally  untrue  ; they  had  completely 
refuted  all  arguments  raised  against  this  abstruse  doctrine  by 


2nd  Sam.,  xxiv.  v.  1. — “krdifhe 
Lord  movfrt  David  ” to  nutnbsr  the 
children  of  I,-ra“l. 

9. — “Jo'b  gave  up  the  number 
of  the  people  unto  the  king,  and 
there  were  in  Israel,  800,000  men 
that  drew  the  sword,  and  the  men 
< f Judah  W"  re  .500.000  men  I ” or 
a total  of  1,300,000. 

13. — “ So  Gad  came  to  David  and 
'•said  unto  him,  Shall  seven  years  of 
(amine  come  unto  thee  in  thy 
land  ? ” etc. 

24. — “ So  David  bought  the 
thresLing-floor  and  the  oxen  for 
fift;/  shekels  of  silver;"  equal  to 
of  our  money,  at  two  shillings 
the  shekel. 

For  I have  seen  God  face  to  face. 
— Gen.  xxxii.  30. 

And  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel. 
— E.x.  xxiv.  19. 

He  rested  and  was  refreshed. — 
Ex.  xxi.  19. 

I am  weary  with  repenting. — Jer. 

XV.  6. 

The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  in  every 
iplac^”. — Prov.  XV.  3. 

Is  there  anything  too  hard  for 
me  ? — Jer.  xxxi  27. 

With  God  all  things  are  possible. 
— Mat',  xix.  26. 

God  is  not  a man  * * that  he 
■ eh'  uld  repent. — Num.  xxiii.  19. 

Those  that  seek  me  early  shall 
■find  me. — Prov.  viii.  17. 

To  undo  the  heavy  burdens,  and 
to  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and 
that  ye  break  every  yoke. — Is. 
Iviii.  6. 


I.  Chron.,  xxi.  v.  1. — ‘,  And  Satan 
stood  up.  and  provoked  David  to 
number  Israel.” 

5. — ••  And  Joab  gave  the  sum  of 
the  number  of  the  people  to  David. 
And  all  they  of  Israel  were 
1,100.000  men  that  drew  the  sword  ; 
an  i Judah  was  470,000  men  that 
drew  the  sword,”  or  a total  of 
1,570,000. 

II.  — “ So  Gad  came  to  David  and 
said  unto  him  Choose  thee  either 

years  of  famine,”  etc. 

25. — ■'  So  David  gave  to  Oman 
for  the  place,  six  hundred  shekels 
of  gold,'  equal  to  £1.050  of  our 
money,  at  £1  15s.  per  shekel. 

No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time. — John  i.  18. 

Whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can 
see. — I.  Tim.  vi.  16. 

The  Creator  * * fainteth  not, 

neither  is  weary. — Is.  xl.  28. 


And  the  Lord  came  down  to  see 
the  city  and  the  tower. — G n.  xi  5. 

And  the  Lord  was  with  Judah 
* * butcouli  not  drive  out  the 

inhabitants  of  the  valley,  because 
they  had  chariots  of  iron. — Judges 
i.  19. 

And  God  repented  of  the  evil  he 
had  said. — Jonah  iii.  10. 

They  shall  seek  me  early,  but 
shall  not  find  me. — Prov.  i.  28. 

Of  the  children  of  the  strangers 
that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them 
shall  ye  buy.  * * They  shall  be 
your  bondmen  for  ever. — Lev.  xxv. 
45,  46. 


71 


the  Christians,  and  th’s  all  those  who  were  present  would 
remember.  He  (the  Priest)  had  never  denied  the  esis  ence 
of  a future  state,  but  what  he  required  was  simply  that  the 
opposite  part}'  should  explain  to  him  the  nature  of  what  they 
meant  by  Atma.  He  had  most  plainly  shewn  them  what 
they  (the  Buddhists)  understood  by  the  idea  of  cleaving  to 
existence  which  took  shape  at  death.  The  Catechist  men- 
tioned something  about  the  dwellers  of  the  Arupa  Brahma 
him  in  explanation  of  Atma,  but  if  his  friend  had  correctly 
understood  what  was  said  in  regard  to  Arupa  Brahma  him, 
he  was  sure  he  would  not  have  brought  it  forward  as  an 
illustration. 

S me  nonsense  was  also  uttered  by  the  Catechist 
in  reply  to  the  remarks  made  by  him  (the  Priest), 
with  reference  to  Giod’s  command  to  Moses  to  perform  a 
series  of  miracles  before  Pharaoh,  according  to  the  effect  that 
each  one  produced,  thereby  shewing  that  God  was  not 
omniscient ; to  meet  this  objection  his  friend  declared  that 
the  plagues  had  been  inflicted  on  Egypt  to  punish  Pharaoh 
for  bis  haughtiness  ; but  what  had  that  to  do  wdth  the  com- 
mand “ do  this  and  if  that  won’t  induce  him  to  let  the 
people  go,  do  the  other,  etc.”  Those  of  the  asse  nbly  who 
had  any  common  sense  would  be  able  to  judge  of  the  in- 
appropriateness of  this  reply  to  the  objection  he  raised. 

Tire  reply  his  friend  made  to  his  remarks  on  the  circumci- 
sion of  Ptoses’  son  was  not  more  happy.  It  was  plainly  declared 
in  the  Bible  that  when  Zipporah,  Moses’  wife,  knew  that  God 
wa«  angry  with  Moses  and  sc  ’it  to  kill  him,  she  circum- 
cised their  son  and  cast  the  foreskin  at  his  feet,  and  this  was 
instanced  by  him  to  shew  the  fondness  of  the  Christians’ 
God  for  human  blood  as  a sacrifice,  in  common  with  devils 
and  other  evil  spirits ; the  course  adopted  to  appease  whom, 
he  would  again  remind  them,  was  the  same  as  that  pursued 
by  Zipporah  in  the  passage  he  had  just  cited.  The  Cate- 
chist could  not  have  possibly  understood  his  (the  Priest’s) 
meaning ; if  he  did  he  would  not  certainly  have  adduced 
such  a ridiculous  reply  as  he  had  done.  He  contented  him- 
self by  saying  that  the  foreskin  was  cast  at  Moses’  feet. 
Apart  from  the  absurdity  of  endeavouiing  to  convince  them 


72 


that  the  sacrifice  with  which  God'’s  wrath  was  sought  tc  he 
appeased  was  throwu  at  Moses*  feet ! — wliat  a feeble  reply  it 
was  to  his  remark  that  God  was  fond  of  human  sacrifices.  It 
was  God  that  sought  to  kill  Moses  and  yet  his  friend  declares 
that  the  bloody  offering  was  thrown  at  Moses’  feet.  How 
absurd ! 

The  incident  with  reference  to  the  armies  of  Judah 
fleeing  from  iron  chariots,  though  the  Lord  was  with 
them,  was  also  mentioned  by  him  (the  Priest)  to 
shew  that,  like  other  evil  spirits,  the  Jewish  God 
feared  iron.  If  he  did  not  fear  iron,  why  was  not 
J udah,  with  whom  the  Lord  was,  more  successful  ? The 
Catechist,  in  his  reply,  declared  that  the  discomfiture  of 
the  armies  of  Judah  was  not  owing  to  any  fear  of  iron,  but 
for  lack  of  Judah’s  faith.  If  then  Judah  had  no  faith,  why 
did  the  Christians’  God,  whom  they  declared  to  be 
omniscient,  abide  with  him?  When  he  joined  him,  if  he 
were  omniscient,  he  would  have  known  that  Judah  did  not 
possess  faith ; and  would  have  foreseen  these  disastrous 
consequences ; and  yet  he  remains  with  him  till  the  last, 
and  only  flees  when  the  iron  chariots  appeared  ! Did  not 
this  clearly  shew  that  either  God  was  not  omniscient  or  that 
he  feared  iron  ? How  will  his  frienil  get  out  of  this  dilemma  ? 
He  would  here  warn  him  (the  Catechist)  not  to  venture  on 
such  answers  in  future,  which  precipitated  him  into  new 
difficulties. 

To  shew  that  Jehovah  did  not  breathe  a portion  of  his 
own  soul  into  Adam  (which  was  the  inference  to  be  drawn 
from  the  passage,  “The  TiOrd  God  formed  man  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 
life,  and  man  became  a living  soul”),  his  friend  instanced 
the  case  of  blowing  oil  into  a man’s  ear,  and  asked  whether 
that  ever  meant  blowing  a portion  of  a man’s  life  with  the 
oil.  What  silly  talk  was  this ! In  saying  that  oil  was 
blown  into  one’s  ear  would  it  be  inferred  that  “ the  breath  of 
life  was  blown  into  him  ? ” — which  was  the  expression  made 
use  of  in  tho  passage,  and  which,  therefore,  warranted  his 
saying  that  it  was  a portion  of  the  spirit  of  God  that  was 
breathed,  or  infused,  into  Adam. 


73 


Tlie  Catechist  also  attempted  to  shew  that  Jephthah’s 
daughter  was  not  killed  and  sacrificed,  by  stating  that  she  was 
ransomed  by  paying  a certain  sum  of  money  to  Jehovah,  but  it 
was  distinctly  said  in  the  Bible  that  Jephthah  did  unto  her 
according  to  his  vow,  which  was,  they  will  remember,  to  offer  up 
unto  the  Lord  as  a burnt  offering  whatever  came  forth  of  the 
doors  of  his  house  to  meet  him  when  he  returns  in  peace  from 
the  children  of  Ammon.  "Well,  what  was  the  doing  unto  her 
according  to  his  vow  if  it  were  not  offering  his  daughter,  who 
came  to  meet  him,  as  a burnt  offering  to  Jehovah  ? If  they 
were  not  satisfied  with  this,  there  was  the  Douay  Bible, 
which  he  would  be  happy  to  hand  to  his  opponents  for  their 
delectation,  which  would  conclusively  shew  that  the  neck  of 
Jephthah’s  daughter  was  really  cut  off,  and  offered  to  Jehovah. 
He  (the  Priest)  regretted  very  much  that  he  was  under  the 
necessity  of  engaging  in  controversies  "with  those  who  ev  n 
attempted  to  deny  facts,  which  were  supported  by  such 
incontrovertible  testimony. 

With  reference  to  his  statement  that  on  account  of  Christ’s 
birth  several  helpless  innocents  had  been  killed,  the  Catechist 
had  the  audacity  to  declare  that  he  (the  Priest)  said  that  the 
innocents  were  slain  at  Christ’s  birth,  or  on  the  day  of  his 
birth,  and  proceeded  to  demolish  that  imaginary  objection. 
He  never  mentioned  that  the  innocents  were  killed  at  Christ’s 
birth,  but  only  that,  on  account  of  Christ’s  birth,  many 
had  been  killed  by  Herod.  If  the  Catechist  had  any  regard 
for  truth,  he  would  not  have  uttered  such  a falsehood  before 
an  assembly  of  the  kind  before  him,  and  who  would  remem- 
ber what  he  actually  said.  Being  unable  to  deny  this  whole- 
sale massacre  of  little  children  on  account  of  the  coming  of 
Christ,  the  Catechist  sought  to  cast  obloquy  of  a similar  kind 
on  Buddha,  by  alleging  that  Buddha’s  mother  died  seven 
days  after  his  birth.  But  the  death  of  Buddha's  mother, 
however,  was  not  in  consequence  of  Buddha’s  birth.  It  is 
clearly  seen  from  Buddhist  books  that  before  a Bhodisat 
(or  Buddha)  leaves  the  abode  of  the  gods  to  be  born  in  this 
world  he  foresees  five  things,  one  of  these  five  being  the  dura- 
tion of  his  mother’s  life  ; and  in  this  instance  it  appears  that  he 
was  incarnated  in  his  mother’s  womb  just  ten  months  and 


74 


seven  days  before  tbe  day  on  wliicb  he  foresaw  she  would 
terminate  her  existence  on  earth.  He  was  bom  in  ten 
months,  and  as  pre-ordained  she  died  at  the  expiration  of  the 
remaining  seven  days.  How  unreasonable  then  was  it  to 
attribute  to  Buddha  the  death  of  his  mother,  who  had  only 
paid  her  debt  to  nature  at  the  appointed  time.  How  could  a 
controversy  he  carried  on  with  a party  who  misrepresented 
the  statements  so  clearly  made  in  Buddhist  scriptures  ? 
No  misrepresentation  nor  concealment  of  facts,  however, 
would  help  them  to  give  a fairer  complexion  to  the 
slaying  of  helpless  innocents  on  account  of  Christ’s 
birth,  than  the  circumstance  actually  bears  and  which  he 
explained  to  them  on  a previous  occasion.  To  clear  Christ 
from  the  imputation  that  he  was  to  be  blamed  for  this  act, 
the  Catechist  declared  that  Christ  was  an  enemy  of  sin,  and 
that  therefore  the  omen  of  the  sinful  massacring  of  innocents 
was  presented  at  his  birth.  This  answer,  however,  was 
extremely  stupid.  The  appearance  of  sinful  signs  would 
indicate  that  he  was  rather  a,  friend  than  an  enemy  of  sin.  At 
the  birth  of  one  who  is  to  bring  happiness  to  this  world,  a 
good  omen  must  present  itself,  and  as  the  slaughter  of  chil- 
dren was  not  a good  sign,  there  was  no  doubt  that  it  only 
portended  the  introduction  of  a false  religion  on  earth  and 
consequent  evil  to  man. 

The  truth  or  otherwise  of  omens  is  one  that  can  be 
experienced  by  anyone,  for  even  the  success  of  a journey 
is  often  prefigured  by  the  omens  that  shew  themselves  at 
starting.  It  was  not  necessary,  however,  to  enlarge  on 
this  subject  as  he  had  fully  treated  of  it  before.  The 
only  advantage  which  the  Catochist  derived  by  tins,  his 
explanation  of  the  omens,  was  that  the  audience  were  enabled 
to  form  a correct  opinion  of  his  intelligence.  But  even  this 
did  not  betray  his  friend’s  stupidity  and  ignorance  so  much 
as  did  the  construction  he  had  put  upon  the  beautiful  simile 
used  in  Buddhist  books  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  power  and 
excellence  of  Buddha’s  speech.  The  expression  made  use  of 
in  the  books  is  that  at  Gautama’s  birth  he  made  an  ahhita 
hesara  sinJm  uadnya,  which  his  friend  interpreted  literally  as 
the  roaring  of  an  undaunted  lion  of  the  kesara  or  maned 


75 


kind,  and  declared  that  owing  to  tkis  roaring  of  Buddha, 
which  rent  the  ears  of  all  creatures,  several  animals  had  died. 
It  would  he  impossible  for  the  intelligent  portion  of  his 
audience  to  repress  their  laughter  at  this  silly  and  stupid 
explanation,  and  as  Buddhism  could  not  in  any  way  suffer 
from  such  feeble  attacks,  they  could  well  afford  to  treat  it 
with  contempt.  According  to  his  friend’s  interpretation 
Rajasingha  signified  a “ lion  king,”  instead  of  a valiant 
king,  which  was  its  proper  meaning.  Would  his  friend, 
however,  be  good  enough  to  cite  a single  authority  for  his 
statement  that  anyone  suffered  any  injury  at  this  “ lion-like  ” 
roaring  of  Buddha. 

His  friend  also  declared  that  the  At/,  which  comprises 

all  Buddhist  doctrines,  were  only  consigned  to  writing  450 
years  after  Buddha’s  death,  and  that,  as  up  to  that  time,  his 
teachings  were  transmitted  orally,  the  doctrines  must  have  been 
put  in  writing  according  to  the  fancy  of  the  priests  who  lived 
at  the  time,  who  it  was  not  to  be  supposed  would  be  able  to 
retain  correctly  in  their  memories  they  had  heard.  This, 
however,  was  all  untrue  ! It  was  certain  that  fifty-three 
years  after  Buddha’s  attaining  Nirvana,  during  the  reign  of 
Walagambahu,  that  the  preaching  of  Buddha  was  consigned 
to  writing  in  this  Island,  and  even  during  Buddha’s  lifetime 
it  is  recorded  that  Buddha’s  sermons  were  engraved  on  gold 
leaves.  The  authenticity  of  our  Sacred  Books  cannot  be 
doubted  by  any  truly  learned  man  ! 

In  this  Island  the  Buddhist  scriptures  were  written  by 
Eahats,  who  were  holy  and  sinless  beings,  possessed  of 
celestial  knowledge,  devoid  of  all  passions,  and  only  inferior 
to  Buddha,  and  hence  had  no  difficulty  whatever  in  retaining 
anything  in  their  memory  for  any  length  of  time  and 
correctly  consigning  all  they  had  heard  to  writing,  without 
adding  to,  or  detracting  one  iota  from  what  Buddha  really 
uttered.  The  case  of  the  Christian  Bible  was,  however, 
different.  It  was  not  vo-itten  by  such  holy  personages  as 
those  whom  he  had  just  mentioned,  but  by  sinful  and 
despicable  men,  such  as  Moses,  who  had  committed  murders 
and  fled  the  country.  Besides,  it  was  recorded  that  the 
Bible  thus  written  was  once  completely  burnt,  but  that  one 


7(> 


of  Jeliovali’s  Kapm-alas  (devil’s  priest)  re-wrote  it,  evidently  as 
suited  his  purposes,  and  somehow  managed  to  impose  it  upon 
the  ting  as  a genuine  work. 

Speaking  of  Moses,  he  could  not  but  mention  what 
occurred  to  him  in  regard  to  the  miracles  he  is  said  to  have 
performed  in  Egypt.  It  was  said  that  the  magicians  of 
Egypt  performed  the  miracles  that  Moses  did.  It  was  his 
opinion  that  Moses  also  was  a magician,  and  to  say,  then, 
that  the  power  of  Almighty  God  was  with  him  was  absurd ! 
If  it  were  so,  the  magicians  too,  must  have  had  this  divine 
power. 

The  Catechist  also  made  some  remarks  in  regard  to  the 
offerings  made  by  Gautama  to  attain  Buddahood,  and  in  par- 
ticular made  mention  of  his  offering  his  childi’en,  as  King 
Wessantara,  to  a hermit  named  Jutaka  Bamnna ; but  the 
Catechist  evidently  said  this,  forgetting  that  before  attaining 
Buddahood,  the  most  supreme  state  in  the  universe,  it  was 
essential  for  the  aspirant  to  conquer  all  q^u'-sions,  and  particu- 
larly the  love  of  worldly  possessions ; and  if,  when  he  was 
asked  to  sacrifice  his  wife  and  children.  King  Wessantara,  who 
was  in  hopes  of*  becoming  Buddha,  had  refused  to  do  so,  it 
would  have  she\vn  him  unfit  for  this  high  mission  on  account 
of  his  desire  to  possess  wives  and  children,  and  therefore  it 
was  that  King  Wessantara  offered  his  children.  Besides 
aged  women  who  have  heard  the  story  of  King  Wessantara 
and  his  offerings  will  remember  that  no  evil  befell  his 
children,  but  happiness  was  the  result  of  their  being  given 
away. 

And  again,  the  queen  of  King  Wessantara  was  not,  as 
alleged  by  the  Catechist,  given  away  to  be  another  man’s 
wife.  The  fact  was  that  Sakkra,  the  celestial  king  of  the  two 
god  worlds,  in  order  to  enable  King  AYessantara  to  accom- 
plish his  clana  paramita  (the  offerings)  necessary  to  attain 
Buddahood  in  the  highest  degree,  assumed  a human  form 
and  presenting  himself  before  King  Wessantara  obtained 
his  queen  as  an  offering  and  immediately  returned  her  to 
the  king.  Thus  the  king’s  last  sacrifice  was  made.  It  was 
therefore  untrue  to  say  that  Buddha  gave  away  his  wives  to 
other  men  in  the  sense  that  the  Catechist  used  the  expression. 


77 


The  Catechist’s  remarks  touching  the  height  of  the 
strings  with  which  Buddha’s  wives  were  tied  if  collected  into 
a heap,  and  so  on,  were  all  to  no  purpose,  as  these  figures 
were  simply  made  use  of  in  the  books  to  express  the  number 
and  the  self-denying  nature  of  the  offerings  made  by  Buddha. 
Symbols  and  figures  were  the  methods  of  speech  in  Buddha’s 
time.  Of  course  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  his  friend 
(the  Catechist)  would  understand  the  pleonasm. 

With  reference  to  the  reply  made  by  the  Catechist  to  his 
(the  Priest’s)  remarks  touching  Christ  not  remaining  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  grave,  as  was  declared  in  th^^ 
Scriptures,  he  could  only  ejaculate  novammmn  (miserable). 
The  Catechist  said  that  the  expression  in  the  Bible  “ three 
days  and  three  nights  ” was  meant  for  three  days.  Even 
supposing  it  were  so,  Christ  having  risen  on  Saturday  night , 
or  according  to  the  Catechist’s  interpretation,  before  Sunday 
commenced,  he  only  remained  two  days  in  the  grave,  the 
Friday  and  the  Saturday,  and  how  can  that  be  made  to 
signify  three  days  and  three  nights  ? It  was  needless  for 
him  to  say  anything  more  touching  the  Catechist’s  feeble  re- 
marks As  the  hour  allotted  to  him  was  nearly  over,  he 
would  now  conclude,  promising  to  still  more  completely  prove 
the  falsity  of  Christianity  during  the  last  hour  of  the  con- 
troversy. He  had  not  yet  shewn  the  comparative  excellence 
of  Jehovah,  Christ,  and  Buddha;  this  he  would  thoroughly 
do  in  the  afternoon.  Meanwhile,  he  would  beg  of  the  multi- 
tude to  keep  in  mind  what  had  been  said  and  sift  the 
truth  from  falsehood.  Heartily  thanking  the  assembly 
for  the  great  order  which  prevailed  among  them,  the  Priest 
brought  his  discourse  to  a close. 

The  Discussion  Continued. 

REV.  MR.  SILVa’s  THIRD  SPEECH. 

Pev.  Mr.  de  Silva  rose,  and  said  that  as  that  was  the 
last  speech  he  had  to  make  in  that  discussion,  he  asked  the 
assembly  to  pay  due  attention. 

Peferring  to  the  Priest’s  charge  against  him  for  using  the 
term  uciruddha  karaya,  opponent,  he  said  that  the  term  wag 


78 


not  an  improper  one  for  an  opponent.  He  then  quoted  the 
following  gatha  (stanza),  and  shewed  that  the  word  was 
uuobjectionahle. 

Apannakam  thanam  eke  duthja  dhut  akkika  eladanmya 
medhra'i  tarn  ganheyyad  apannakam.  Here  the  words  apanna- 
kam thanam  are  translated  in  thejatakas  avimddhakaranayak ; 
the  word  virniddha,  therefore,  meant  a subject  about  which 
there  was  a difference  of  opinion.  Vii'uddhakaraya  was, 
therefore,  neither  olfensive  nor  improper. 

The  passage  from  Eccl.  iii.  19,  quoted  by  the  opponent 
to  shew  that  the  Bible  taught  that  man  was  only  a bea  t is 
refuted  by  Eccl.  iii.  7.  In  the  former,  animal  life  and  the 
mortality  of  the  body  are  only  meant ; but  the  latter  shewed 
that  there  was  a spirit  besides,  which  went  to  Grod  who 
gave  it. 

The  opponent  said  that  Buddhayhosn,  attempting  to  ex- 
plain Paticcasamuppada,  found  himself  in  unsurmonntable 
difficulty,  as  one  who  fell  into  the  deep  ocean;  but  the 
opponent  promises  to  explain  it.  Is  he  more  competent 
than  Bnddhayhosa  ? Mr.  de  Silva  next  reviewed  the  Patic- 
caaamnppadaya,  and  shewed  its  absurdity,  as  in  his  second 
speech. 

The  opponent,  explaining  the  Catimatya,  appealed  to  the 
people,  ami  asked  whether  birth,  was  not  sorrow.  But 
Buddha  said  ; Pid>le  ananussutesu  dhammesu  cakkhiim  ndapadi 
nanam  udapadi panna  ndapadi  vijja  udapadi  aloko  udapadi ; viz., 
for  the  attainment  of  these  previously  unknown  doctrines, 
the  eye,  the  knowledge,  the  wisdom,  the  clear  perception,  the 
lights  were  developed  within  me  (Buddha).  What  every 
mail  was  expected  to  know,  Buddha  only  knew  after  he  had 
attained  to  Buddahood. 

Tlespecting  the  opponent’s  objection  to  men  being  in 
heaven  if  the  present  soul  went  there,  Mr.  Silva  said  human 
souls  wore  human  souls  even  in  heaven.  Men  on  earth  were 
subject  to  decay  and  death;  but  in  heaven  they  were  glorious 
immortal  beings. 

Next,  the  absurdity  of  the  opponent  quoting  I.  Cor.  xv.  22, 
to  shew  that  it  contradicted  the  passages  in  Matt.  xxv.  41-47 
and  Matt.  vii.  13-14,  were  shewn.  In  the  first  passage  the 


79 


opponent  confounded  the  meaning  of  the  words  jivnf- 
u'anulahanawaeta,  made  alive,  with  galavamilahnnaicaeta,  being 
saved.  Being  made  alive  and  being  saved  are  different 
things.  All  were  made  alive  through  Christ ; hut  from 
John  V.  28  and  29  it  would  appear  that  “ all  that  are  in  the 
graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth;  they  that  have 
done  good  into  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have 
done  e\ul  into  the  resm’rection  of  damnation.”  The  opponent 
evidently  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  even  the  Singhalese 
words  jivatvanulabanawa  and  galawanidahanawa.  Hence  the 
confusion. 

The  opponent  said  that  the  arupa  worlds  and  their 
inhabitants  were  subjects  very  abstruse,  and  not  easy  to 
explain ; but  wished  to  know  whether  the  Atma,  the  soul, 
was  like  an  egg  or  a ball.  How  absurd  a question ! 

The  opponent  said  that  even  at  the  time  of  Buddha  the 
Dharma  was  written  on  leaves  of  gold ; but  the  books  said 
Satthakatham  sabbam  Buddha  vacanam  tathagatassa  parinibba- 
nato  yam  panasadhikani  cattari  vassa  satani  tava  mati  mmpanna 
bhikkhii  mukha  patliena  anemm ; that  is,  Buddha’s  words, 
with  the  comments,  were  brought  down  orally  by  intelligent 
priests  during  450  years  after  Buddha’s  death. 

The  opponent  objected  to  Moses  and  his  writings  because 
he  (Moses)  at  one  time  killed  an  Egyptian.  Moses  cer- 
tainly did  save  the  life  of  an  innocent  Hebrew  by  killing  an 
Egyptian,  who  was  going  to  kill  the  Hebrew.  Moses’  act 
was  perfectly  justifiable  and  laudable.  Even  if  it  were 
otherwise,  if  he  were  a culprit,  he  was  so  before  he 
was  called  of  God.  There  was  nothing  to  prevent  him 
from  obeying  God,  repenting,  and  being  reformed.  Be- 
sides, the  Christians  did  not  take  refuge  in  Moses, 
But  see  the  character  of  some  of  those  in  whom  the 
Buddhists  take  refuge.  AnguUmala,  the  finger-chained, 
was  a robber  and  a murderer  who  killed  999  human  beings. 
He  was  at  once  ordained  by  Buddha  and  attained,  it  is  said, 
rahatship.  The  Buddhists  take  refuge  in  him.  AnguUmala 
pirita  is  recited  by  the  Buddhists  at  the  present  time  for 
protection.  Harantika  was  also  a robber.  He  also  attained 
rahatship.  The  Buddhists  take  refuge  in  him.  The  Demon 


80 


Aloha  for  twelve  years  consecutively  murdered  and  ate  a 
human  being  every  day.  He  is  said  to  have  attained  aon-an. 
The  Buddhists  take  refuge  in  him.  Having  these  things  before 
our  opponent,  how  ridiculous  was  it  to  charge  Moses  of 
murder,  aiid  blaspheme  Grod  for  calling  him  to  his  service. 

The  opponent  denied  that  Bodhisat  ever  gave  away  his 
wife  and  children  for  improper  uses.  The  opponent  was 
either  ignorant  or  cared  not  to  utter  falsehood  even  before 
such  an  assembly.  In  Kmlngotmwji  it  is  stated  that  Bud- 
dha’s wife  Yasodhara,  taking  leave  of  him  to  enter  nibbanam, 
addressing  Buddha  himself,  said  : — 

Neha  koti  sah'vssani  gooaratthaua  dayi  mam  na  taftha  rimana 
homi  tiujh  atthana  mnha  mime — Great  sage,  many  thousands  of 
koti  times  thou  gavest  me  away  as  prey  to  lions,  etc.,  yet  I 
was  not  displeased  with  thee  neka  koti  sahnssaui  hharbja  'ttliaija 
dayi  mam  many  thousands  of  koti  times  thou  gavest  me  away 
as  wife,  etc.,  neka  koti  sahassani  upakar  atthaya  dayi  mam, 
many  thousands  of  koti  times  thou  gavest  me  away  iu  order 
to  obtain  favour,  etc. 

Again  it  is  said  in  the  comment  agat  agatanam  yacakanam 
alankata  patiy attain  sisam  kantitva  gala  lohitam  niharittxi 
anjitani  kkhini  iippatetva  kata  vansa  padipikam  putta  mnnapa 
carinim  hhariyamdenena  namvya  adiiinamdanam  nama  nathi. 
There  is  nothing  that  I refused  to  give  away  to  those  that 
came  to  me  begging.  I cut  off  my  ornamented  head,  I sacri- 
ficed the  blood  of  my  neck,  I plucked  off  my  beautiful  eyes, 
I gave  away  my  promising  children,  and  my  beloved  wife. 
The  opponent’s  assertion  was  therefore  palpable  error  or 
monstrous  falsehood. 

Mr.  de  Silva  next  pointed  out  the  character  of  Bodhisat 
after  he  had  the  assurance  of  becoming  Buddha.  He  was 
then  Buddhankara,  a germ  of  Buddahood  growing  up  to  attain 
that  stage.  A plant  of  any  kind  retained  its  nature  when  it 
grew. 

In  the  Parantapajataka  Bodhisat  was  heir  apparent  to  the 
throne.  Enemies  having  come  to  attack  the  city,  tlie  prince 
was  asked  by  the  king  to  drive  them  away.  The  prince,  for 
fear  of  being  killed,  as  was  foretold  by  a she  jackal,  refused 
to  go  to  battle.  The  king  repeated  his  command,  but 


81 


Bodliisat  having  for  some  time  repeatedly  refused  to  go,  at 
last  consented.  But  instead  of  protecting  the  city  and  the 
royal  parent,  he  acted  the  part  of  an  enemy.  The  royal 
parent,  with  the  family  priest  and  a servant  called  Parantapa, 
had  to  flee  into  the  jungle  for  life.  There  the  queen, 
Bodhisat’s  mother,  fell  in  love  with  Parantapa  and  lived 
immorally  with  him,  by  whom  the  poor  king  was  at  last 
massacred ; and  in  return  the  second  prince,  who  was  born 
in  the  jungle,  when  he  grew  up  massacred  Parantapa  for 
seducing  his  mother  the  queen.  All  these  things  followed 
the  treacherous  conduct  of  Bodhisat,  who  acted  the  part  of  an 
enemy  to  his  father,  to  his  king,  and  to  the  kingdom.  No 
civilised  nation  could  countenance  such  misconduct  and 
treachery. 

In  another  birth,  Sitssondiya  Jataka,  Bodhisat  was  a 
gurula.  He  was  a famous  gambler.  He  went  to  Benares  to 
gamble  with  the  king  Thambatanda  and  at  last  seduced  the 
queen  and  ran  away  with  her.  This  was  the  conduct  of 
young  Buddha. 

In  Matangajataka  Bodhisat  committed  a similar  act. 
Are  these  the  examples  set  on  record  for  those  who  would 
aspire  to  Buddhaship  ? 

Now  to  inquire  into  Buddha’s  teachings. 

In  the  Satta  Suriyuggana  Suttani  of  the  Anguttara 
Nikaya,  Buddha  says : — 

Sinem  bhUikhave  pabhata  raja,  caturasiti  yojana  sahassani 
ayamena  caturasiti  yojana  sahassam  vittharena  caturasiti  yojana 
sahassani  maha  samudde  ajjhogalho  caturasiti  yojana  sahassani 
malm  samudad  accuggato 

Priests,  the  king  of  mountains  is  in  length  84,000  yojanas, 
in  breadth  84,000  yojanas,  beneath  the  great  ocean  8-t,000 
yojanas  and  above  tlie  sea  84,000  yojanas.  In  the  same 
suttam  the  order  in  which  the  world  is  destroyed  is 
stated. 

Hoti  kho  so  bhikkhave  samayo  bahuni  vassa  satani  bahum 
vassa  sahassani  bahuni  cassa  sata  sahassani  devo  na  vassati ; 
devo  kho  puna  bhikkhave  avassante  ye  keci  bijagama  bhutaganm 
osadhi  vana  Una  vanaspatayo  te  ussussanti  vissussanti  na 
bhamnti. 


6 


C2 


Prie'^ts,  a time  "will  come  when  for  many  hundreds,  thou- 
sands, and  hundred  thousands  of  years  there  will  he  no  rain. 
Priests,  there  being  no  rain,  all  plants,  herbs,  medicinal  roots, 
forests,  grass,  and  trees  will  become  completely  dried  and 
burnt  up.  "When  the  second  sun  appears,  the  little  rivers, 
ponds,  and  lakes  will  become  dried  up  and  disappear.  When 
the  third  sun  appears,  the  large  rivers,  etc.,  will  be  dried  upr 
when  the  fourth  sun  appears,  the  large  lakes  will  be  dried 
up.  When  the  fifth  sun  appears,  the  seas  will  be  dried  up. 
When  the  sixth  sun  appears  {aijan  ca  niaha  pafhnn  siiiern  ca 
pabbata  raja  adippanti  pajjalanti)  this  great  earth  and 
Mahameru  will  burn  continually  ; thus  this  great  earth  and 
Mahameru,  as  well  as  everything  else,  are  mentioned,  and  the 
order  of  their  destruction  Where,  then,  is  this  great 
mountain  which  is  84,000  yojanas  in  length,  84,000  yojanas 
in  breadth,  and  84,000  yojanas  above  the  sea,  situated? 
How  is  it  possible  that  it  could  not  be  seen  to  the  eyes  of 
men  ? this  globe  represents  the  earth.  (Here  the  globe  was 
shewn.)  In  this  the  shape  of  the  earth,  its  dimensions,  the 
great  rivers  and  seas,  and  the  positions  of  the  coimtries,  etc., 
are  all  represented.  Now,  the  circumference  of  the  earth  is 
25,000  miles.  This  is  admitted  by  all  the  civilised  nations 
of  the  world.  This  fact  is  proved  by  every  day’s  experience. 
Therefore,  a mountain  with  such  dimensions  could  not  exist 
on  this  earth.  Wherever  it  existed  it  must  be  seen,  as  this 
globe  which  now  stands  on  this  little  inkstand  must  be  seen 
by  all  V ho  are  on  the  four  sides  of  it.  So  likewise  if  there 
were  a n oun  ain  of  that  kind  it  could  not  but  be  seen  by  all 
the  inhabitaats  of  the  four  quarters.  Besides,  man  can 
know  to  a certainty  within  a few  weeks  whether  there  be 
such  a mountain  or  not.  Men  at  no  period  ever  saw  such  a 
mountain,  nor  have  they  known  by  science  that  there  could 
be  such  a mountain.  One  who  had  said  that  there  was  such 
a mountain  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  a wise  man,  nor 
one  who  spoke  the  truth.  That  saying  is  a falsehood,  it  is 
an  ignorant  saying.  It  is  moreover  said  that  Sahampati 
made  an  offering  of  the  size  of  Mahameru  : that  the  re- 
sidence of  Sakkraya  was  on  the  top  of  Mahameru,  and  that 
Buddha  frequently  went  there;  it  is  also  said  that  Ab- 


83 


hidharma  was  preached  from  its  top.  Many  statements  of 
this  kind  in  connection  with  Mahameru  are  to  Le  t'ouud 
scattered  in  the  sacred  books  of  Buddhism. 

If  it  be  asked  why  speak  about  Mahameru,  the  reply 
would  be  that  if  so  great  a falsehood  could  be  uttered 
respecting  a thing  in  this  world,  about  which  men  can  remove 
their  doubts  by  seeing  with  their  own  eyes,  how  could  any 
statement  made  touching  heavenly  and  Brahma  worlds, 
which  we  cannot  see  and  examine,  be  believed  ? Is  this 
person  to  be  believed  who  speaks  that  which  could  easily  be 
proved  as  false,  and  declares  a thing  not  existing  as  if  it 
existed  ? Certainly  not.  Besides,  everything  that  is  stated 
in  Buddhism  is  connected  with  Mahameru.*  The  Chaturma- 
harajika,  heavenly  worlds,  are  connected  with  Mahameru. 
The  Tawatinsa,  heavenly  world,  is  on  the  top  of  it.  The 
other  heavenly  worlds  gradually  rise  above  it.  The 
Brahma  worlds  are  above  those.  The  Arupa  worlds  are 
above  the  rest.  Thus,  if  Mahameru  did  not  exist  where  then 
could  all  those  worlds  exist  ? They  must  all  tumble  down,  as 
a house  whose  foundation  is  rotten.  Besides,  if  there  is  no 
Mahameru  what  advantage  is  there  in  almsgiving  or  perform- 
ing meritorious  actions  ? They  are  done  with  a view  to  be 
bom  in  those  worlds.  What  is  the  use  of  observing  8il, 
precepts  ? They  are  observed  to  be  born  in  the  heavenly 
worlds.  If  those  worlds  do  not  exist  all  that  is  usi  less. 
What  is  the  use  of  obser^ung  Jhana.  abstruse  meditations, 
as  some  priests  at  Matura  observed  until  they  got  mad  ? Ail 
those  things  are  useless.  Mahamem,  of  84,000  yojanas  in 
length  and  breadth  and  height,  must  be  placed  on  the  earth  ; 


' This  reference  on  the  part  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Silva  to  Meru  (or  Maha- 
meru) -termed  in  Hindu  Mytholog’y.  “ the  navel  ot  the  earth,  ’ — was,  in  our 
opinion,  ill-timed  aud  out  of  place  in  a discussion  relating  to  Buddhism; 
and  for  the  reason  that  it  is  Hinduism,  rather  than  Buddhism,  that 
has  to  do  with  Meru.  This  mountain,  reputed  so  high  and  so  brond,  is 
traceable  to  Hindu  legends,  originating  long  before  Buddha's  time. 
The  same  mountain  was  referred  to  by  Cleanthes  and  Anaximenes,  shew- 
ing an  interchange  of  thought  between  India  and  Greece.  Buddhism  bi  re 
something  the  same  relation  to  Hinduism  that  Luther's  Reformation 
bore  to  Roman  Catholicism, 


C— 2 


84 


if  not,  Burlflliism  must  be  rejected  at  once.  There  is  no 
advantage  to  be  derived  In  believing  in  Buddhism. 

Next,  if  Buddha  had  the  power  of  knowing  anything,  even 
by  meditation,  it  was  proper  for  him  to  have  given  precepts, 
having  in  view  how  those  precepts  would  be  understood  by 
his  disciples;  for  because  of  the  precept  that  his  priests 
should  not  have  carnal  connection,  one  priest  had  connection 
with  a female  monkey,  another  priest  with  his  own  mother, 
and  another  with  his  own  sister.  IIow  strange  it  is  that  one 
who  professed  to  have  the  power  of  knowing  everything 
should  have  given  a precept  which  he  ought  to  have  foreseen 
would  be  misconstrued.  Is  there  any  other  instance  in  the 
world  where  a teacher  had  brought  up  disciples  in  this  way  ? 
Could  not  this  omniscient  one  lay  down  the  precept  so  as  to 
prevent  all  these  misunderstandings  ? If  he  had  the  power 
and  did  not  use  it,  he  was  the  cause  of  all  these  mischiefs. 
These  are  not  the  only  instances  mentioned  in  the  Parajika 
book,  but  it  contains  a whole  host  of  such  filth. 

Again,  Buddha  encouraged  the  practice  of  the  most 
heinous  crimes.  A priest  committed  the  foulest  sin,  the  par- 
ticulars of  which  cannot  be  given.  The  punishment 
Buddha  inflicted  upon  the  priest  who  so  acted,  was  a minor 
punishment.  The  punishmont  was  lie  had  simply 

to  confess  his  fault  before  the  priests,  when  he  was  retained 
in  the  priesthood.  lie  was  not  even  excommunicated. 

Another  priest  was  guilty  of  a horrible  crime  of  the 
same  kind.  This  crime  was  called  by  Buddha  dukkata — very 
minor  offence.  The  priest  was  retained  in  his  priesthood, 
and  associated  with. 

Another  priest  committed  a similar  offence : it  was  also 
called  dukkata,  a very  minor  offence. 

Another  instance  of  causing  a miscarriage  was  pronounced 
'thu/lacca ; namely,  the  offence  was  very  minute.  Many 
other  instances  of  this  kind  may  be  quoted  from  the  Parajika. 
W ere  there  instances  of  this  kind  recorded  among  the  dis- 
ciples of  any  other  teacher  ? From  the  punishments  given 
to  such  inhuman  offenders,  was  it  not  clear  that  this  teacher 
tencouraged  vice  ? Such  offences  would  meet  with  the 
highest  condemnation  among  men,  but  Buddha,  by  slighting. 


85 


encouraged  them.  It  is  no  use  to  say  that  the  priests  in 
Buddha’s  time  were  good  men,  because  these  instances  shew 
the  contrary. 

With  reference  to  Buddha’s  death,  Buddha  accepted  the 
invitation  of  Chunda,  the  blacksmith.  A young  pig  was 
prepared  with  rice.  Buddha  prevented  the  pork  being  served 
to  any  of  his  attending  priests.  He  enjoyed  it  to  satisfac- 
tion and  it  caused  dysentery.  The  invitation  was  at  Pawa. 
He  had  to  go  to  Kusina  from  thence.  Because  of  the 
dysentery,  he  suffered  excruciating  pains.  He  had  to  lie 
down  twenty-five  times  on  the  way.  He  fainted  several 
times.  He  called  for  water  to  quench  his  thirst.  He 
managed  to  reach  a little  river,  drank  cold  water,  bathed  in 
the  river,  but  of  this  dysentery  he  never  recovered.  He  died. 
These  things  are  recorded  in  the  Mahaparinibhana  Suttan. 
His  object  in  bringing  these  circumstances  connected 
with  his  death  was  to  shew  that  everything  recorded 
about  his  birth,  the  gods  and  Brahmas  attending 
on  him,  paying  him  glorious  adorations,  and  Buddha’s 
own  miracles  which  he  performed  when  required, 
were  only  statements  which  no  one  ought  to  credit. 
Here  was  the  crisis  in  which  all  super-human  attendance  and 
comfort  was  necessary,  and  his  own  power  needed  to  be 
manifested.  Nothing  of  the  kind  was  at  hand.  He  got 
sick,  he  suffered  pains,  he  walked  from  one  place  to  anothei’, 
fainting  and  lying  down  on  the  road,  and  at  last  died  as  any 
other  miserable  man  would  die.  These  things  prove  that  the 
statements  recorded  about  Buddha’s  super-human  power 
were  as  fabulous  as  those  related  to  lull  children. 

He  then  stated  that,  according  to  Christianity,  man  had 
an  immortal  soul  as  well  as  a body,  which  precious  immortal 
soul  must  go  from  hence  to  the  other  world.  In  order  to 
save  this  soul  and  take  it  to  heaven,  “ God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son.”  This  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Saviour  of  men,  offered  himself  and  died  on  the  cross  as 
a sacrifice  for  sin,  by  which  a way  is  now  opened  to  those 
who  would  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  on  him  shall  be 
saved.  There  is  no  other  name  given  under  heaven  for  man’s 
salvation  except  this  one  name.  Therefore  it  was  the  duty 


G3 


of  all  that  TVf^re  present  to  take  refuge  in  tliat  only  Saviour 
and  be  saved  from  the  miseries  of  hell.  This  he  implored  of 
all  who  were  present  to  attend  to. 

Now,  he  said,  no  satisfactory  answer  was  given  to  the 
objections  brought  forward  against  Buddhism,  and  every 
objection  raised  against  Christianity  was  satisfactorily 
answered.  This  he  begged  the  audience  to  bear  in  mind. 

The  Buddhist’s  Closing  Speech, 

OB 

THE  REV.  MIGETTUWATTe’s  FOURTH  REPLY. 

Tlie  Priest  Migettuwatte,  commencing  his  reply,  said  that 
this  being  the  last  hour  of  the  controversy,  it  was  the  only 
opportunity  he  should  have  of  addressing  the  assembly,  and 
begged  of  them  to  listen  to  him  patiently,  and  in  as  orderly 
a manner  as  during  the  previous  occasions. 

They  would  remember  that  the  rev.  gentleman  on  the 
first  day  of  this  controversy  declared  that  Buddhism  likened 
man  unto  beasts ; in  his  morning  lecture  he  most  completely 
shewed  that  it  was  not  Buddhism  but  Christianity  that  had 
done  so  ; but  as  he  now  saw  before  him  several  who  were  not 
])resent  on  that  occasion  he  would,  to  prevent  any  mis- 
conception, again  read  the  passage  appearing  in  the  Bible  in 
reference  to  this  matter.  It  was  Ecclesiastes  iii.  19,  and 
the  words  were,  “ For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men 
befalleth  beasts  ; even  one  thing  befalleth  them  : as  the  one 
dieth,  so  dieth  the  other  ; so  that  a man  hath  no  pre-emiuence 
above  a beast : for  all  is  vanity.”  What  clearer  proof  did 
they  require  to  establish  the  fact  that  it  was  Christianity  that 
likened  man  unto  beasts  and  not  Buddhism,  as  the  rev. 
gentleman  had  improperly  asserted. 

With  reference  to  his  brief  explanation  of  Paficca- 
s'lmuphadn,  the  rev.  gentleman  sneeringly  asked  whether 
he  (the  Priest)  was  more  competent  to  understand  this 
abstruse  subject  than  Buddhaghosa,  whose  saying  that 
cue  attempting  to  explain  this  doctrine  was  like  a man 
who  fell  into  the  deep  ocean  he  had  cited.  It  was  true 
that  he  had  quoted  this  passage  to  illustrate  the  difficulty 


87 


of  properly  comprehending  this  doctrine,  hut  his  explaining 
the  subject  to  the  utmost  of  his  ability  did  not  make  him  (the 
Priest)  cleverer  than  Buddhaghosa.  He  could  only  attribute 
these  stupid  remarks  touching  his  speech  to  the  rev. 
gentleman’s  envious  feeling  towards  him. 

The  rev.  gentleman,  in  explaining  Paticcamnuiphoda, 
uttered  some  arrant  nonsense,  and  declared  that  this  doctrine 
of  causation  was  as  confused  and  senseless  as  the  statement 
that  the  father  was  begotten  of  the  son,  and  the  son  was 
begotten  of  the  father.  This  far-fetched  illustration,  he  was 
sure,  would  not  have  been  adduced  by  the  rev.  gentleman 
if  he  had  the  least  idea  of  the  correct  meaning  of  Paticcn^ 
samiiphada.  He  was  in  no  manner  justified  in  attributing  to 
Buddhism  the  advocacy  of  such  a circumlocutory  genesis  as 
his  illustration  implied.  Buddhism  did  not  contain  any  such 
doctrine,  but  it  was  in  Christianity  that  mention  was  made  of 
an  extraordinary  roundabout  causation  as  instanced  by  the 
rev.  gentleman. 

He  would  crave  their  most  careful  attention  while 
he  partially  explained  what  it  was.  As  Mary,  the 
Mother  of  Christ,  was  created  by  Jehovah,  Jehovah  was 
her  father,  and  Mary  his  daughter  ; but  because  the  Holy 
Gihost  was  conceived  in  Mary’s  womb  Jehovah  becomes  her  son, 
and  Mary,  Jehovah’s  mother ; and  as  Christ  is  Jehovah’s  son, 
Jehovah  becomes  Mary’s  husband,  and  Mary  his  wife.  So 
according  to  the  Scriptures  the  same  Mary  becomes  in 
one  case  Jehovah’s  daughter,  in  another  Jehovah’s 
mother,  again  J ehovah’s  wife,  and  truly  if  the  term 
“ roundabout  ” or  “ circumlocutory  genesis  ” could  be  applied 
to  any  proceeding,  it  was  to  the  Trinity  notion  con- 
nected with  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  not  to  the  reasonable 
doctrine  of  Paticcasamuphada.  He  hoped  that  now  they  were 
satisfied  that  it  was  in  Christianity  and  not  in  Buddhism 
that  a father  is  said  to  be  born  of  a son  and  son  of  a father. 

The  rev  gentleman  also  remarked,  like  his  friend  the 
Catechist,  that  the  BudJh’st  doctrines  could  not  be  relied  on 
as  they  were  consigned  to  writing  about  450  years  after 
Buddha’s  attaining  Nlrcana ; in  reply  to  this  he  need  only 
repeat  what  he  previously  asserted,  that  thero  was  abundant 


88 


proof  to  sKew  that  even  during  Buddha’s  lifetime,  perma- 
nency was  gicen  to  his  doctrines  in  wiiting.  And  the 
Buddhist  scriptures,  he  would  assure  them,  did  not  share  the 
same  fate  as  a portion  of  the  original  Christian  Bible,  which 
was  once  completely  burnt,  hut  subsequently  cooked  up  by  a 
Ka]iua  (devil’s  priest)  of  a temple  and  palmed  off  as  a 
true  copy  of  the  original  document. 

The  charge  of  murder  raised  by  the  rev.  gentleman 
against  Angulimala  Terunanse  was  totally  untrue  ? It 
never  appeared  in  any  Buddhist  works  that  even  an 
ant  had  been  killed  by  him,  much  less  a man.  The 
name  Angulimala  was  given  to  this  personage  after 
his  ordination  and  the  attainment  of  the  Rabat  state ; 
and  it  was  to  this  Rahat  that  offerings  and  oblations  were 
made  by  Buddhists,  and  so  even  if  Angulimala  Thero  were 
guilty  of  the  alleged  crime  (which  he  was  not,  and  which 
his  opponent  could  not  substantiate)  while  he  was  a layman, 
possessed  of  carnal  desires  and  sinful  passions,  no  blame 
attaches  to  him  after  his  becoming  a Rahat ; and  it  could  not 
be  brought  forward  now  as  a slur  on  him,  after  he  had 
attained  that  state,  having  made/«//  expiation  for  all  short- 
comings. The  same  remarks  will  apply  to  the  rev.  gentleman’s 
strictures  on  Ilarantika  and  Alawaka  as  well. 

The  rev.  gentleman  sought  to  attach  blame  on  the  holy 
Rahats,  Angulimala,  Ilarantika,  and  Alawaka,  who  wi’ote 
the  Buddhist  scriptures,  and  said  lhit  the  Bible,  however, 
was  pure,  though  written  in  part  by  the  murderer  Moses, 
who  fled  the  country,  and  subsequently  joined  Jehovah. 
Mj"  opponent  talked  something  about  “ filth  ” in  Buddhist 
books.  The  charge  is  false  and  untrue  ! But  if  there  were 
more  filthy  things  in  print  than  might  be  found  in  some 
parts  of  the  Christian’s  Bible,  he  had  not  seen  them. 

The  rev.  gentleman  can  never  prove  from  the  Bible 
that  Moses  was  free  from  sin  even  after  he  joined 
Jehovah.  lie  was  a man  as  are  others,  full  of  lustful 
desires  and  passions,  and  is  even  said  to  have  slain 
thousands  after  this  event.  Surely  they  would  not  call  such 
a man  holy,  and  what  credence  can  be  placed  on  a work 
emanating  from  such  a despicable  source  ? But  it  was  not 


89 


so  wifTi  tlie  writers  of  the  Buddhist  scriptures,  who  were  all 
Bahats,  freed  from  all  passions  and  lust,  and  whose  sins  had 
been  completely  expiated  And  the  attempt  of  the  rev. 
gentleman  to  asperse  tholr  holy  character  by  mentioning 
some  of  the  shortcomings  they  may  have  been  guilty  of  in  a 
previous  state  of  existence,  was  as  unsuccessful  as  disgraceful. 
By  such  a course,  Moses’  crimes  could  not  be  extenuated ; 
and  to  hope  to  gain  future  happiness  by  believing  in  the 
doctrines  of  such  cruel  and  sinful  men  as  Moses  could  only 
be  likened  to  an  attempt  to  extract  oil  from  sand  ! 

To  shew  that  Buddha  gave  away  his  wife  to  others, 
the  rev.  gentleman  read  some  Pali  stanzas,  and  declared 
them  to  be  quotations  from  Buddhist  scriptures.  His 
opponent  knew  better.  Nothing  of  the  sort  could  be 
established  from  the  stanzas  quoted  from  the  Terapada- 
naya  ; and  as  for  the  other  stanzas  beginning  Ayatagala- 
nani  such  a passage  as  the  rev.  gentleman  alleged  never 
appears  amongst  Buddha’s  sayings!  He  regretted  much 
for  being  under  the  necessity  of  having  to  argue  in  matters 
of  religion  with  one  who  did  not  hesitate  to  speak  such 
untruths,  with  the  view  of  deceiving  the  ignorant.  This, 
however,  would  help  those  present  to  form  a correct  estimate 
of  the  character  of  the  rev.  gentleman. 

He  also  disparaged  the  character  of  Buddha  by 
quoting  from  Parantajiajataka  and  Simandyajaiaka ; but 
he  would  again  tell  them,  as  in  the  case  of  Angulimala, 
that  Holy  Buddha  was  not  to  be  blamed  for  sins  com- 
mitted in  a previous  birth,  or  even  in  a Bhodisat  state, 
which  meant  the  state  in  which  a being  aspires  to  be  a 
Buddha.  In  both  those  states  mortal  beings  are  not  devoid 
of  passions,  but  are  liable  to  err.  It  was  not  correct  to  say 
that  Buddhists  take  refuge  in  such  as  these.  Bhodisats  are 
neither  worshipped  nor  resorted  to  for  refuge,  because  they 
do  not  pretend  to  possess  the  virtues  of  the  Buddhas.  The 
interpretation  given  to  Budhankara  as  being  a growing 
Buddha,  is  false  and  only  shews  the  lamentable  ignorance 
of  the  rev.  gentleman ! So  much  for  his  unsuccessful 
attempt  to  bring  Buddha  into  contempt  for  offences  com- 
mitted in  a Bhodisat  state 


90 


After  shewing  from  Sim'yofgamansatra  that  Buddha 
had  declared  the  existence  of  Mahameru,  the  rev.  gentleman 
stated  that  even  a schoolboy  could  satisfactorily  disprove  his 
statement.  The  rev  gentleman  no  doubt  alluded  to  Sir  Isaac 
Newton’s  theory  when  he  made  that  remark,  according  to 
which  day  and  night  were  caused  by  the  earth  revolving 
round  its  axis,  and  not  by  the  sun  being  hidden  behind 
Mahamer'i.  The  little  globe  which  the  rev.  gentleman  pro- 
duced was  one  made  on  Newton’s  principle:  but  even 
amongst  Englishmen  there  were  serious  doubts  and  differ- 
ences of  opinion  as  to  whether  Newton’s  theory  was  correc,. 
or  not.  Among  others,  Mr.  Morrison,  a learned  gentleman, 
had  published  a book  refuting  Newton’s  arguments,  and  he 
would  be  happy  to  allow  the  Christian  party  a sight  of  this 
book,  which  was  in  his  possession.  (Here  he  produced  and 
handed  around  the  “ New  Principia,”  by  R.  J.  Morrison, 
F.A.S.L.,  published  in  London.) 

How  unjust,  then,  to  attempt  to  demolish  the  great 
Buddha’s  sayings  by  quoting  as  authority  an  immature 
system  of  astronomy,  the  correctness  of  which  is  not  yet 
accepted.  Besides,  even  according  to  Christianity,  the 
rev.  gentleman’s  statements  are  incorrect.  For  in  Ec- 
clesiastes i.  5,  appeared  the  words : “ The  sun  also 

ariseth,  and  the  sun  goeth  down,  and  hasteth  to  his 
place  where  he  arose,”  which  was  biblically  conclufive  as  to 
the  sun  moving,  and  the  earth  being  sta' ionary.  There  was 
a similar  statement  made  in  Buddhist  books.  The  rev. 
gentleman’s  attempt  to  deny  the  existence  of  Mahameru 
with  the  aid  of  this  little  globe  and  Newton’s  theory,  has 
only  given  the  lie  to  his  own  religion. 

The  mariner’s  compa?s  was  the  best  proof  he  could  give 
them  of  the  existence  of  Mahameru.  Keep  it  where  you 
may,  the  attraction  of  the  magnetic  needle  is  always  towards 
the  North.  This  demonstrated  that  there  was  a huge 
mass  in  that  direction  which  attracted  the  needle  towards  it, 
and  according  to  the  Buddhist  books,  Mahameru,  the 
grandest  and  most  stupendous  rock  on  the  fa  e of  the  earth, 
was  situated  in  i±j.c;  North.  Were  they  not  now  satisfied  that 
their  Mahameru  did  exist  in  the  North,  as  is  declared?  li 


91 


not,  can  the  Christian  party  adduce  a single  reason  why 
there  should  be  this  a' traction  in  the  needle  towards  tee 
North  more  than  to  the  East,  West,  or  South  ? This  was 
impossible  The  mariner’s  compass  was  the  mo  t conclusive 
argument  for  the  existence  of  the  famed  Mahameru.  The 
passage  through  the  northern  zone  of  ice  into  the  open  Polar 
Sea,  where  are  lands,  rocks,  and  mountains,  may  de- 
monstrate this  beyond  a doubt.  * The  rev.  gentleman  has 
asked  how  a rock  84,000  yojanas  above  the  sea  could  exist 
on  the  earth,  the  circumference  of  which  was  only  25,000 
miles.  But  this  has  been  questioned  as  it  is  based  on 
Newton’s  theory,  and  besides,  it  was  not  possible  to  draw 
any  correct  comparisons  between  the  figures,  because  even  at 
the  present  day  the  true  length  of  a yodun  is  a controverted 
point  among  the  savants  in  India.  Has  the  rev.  gentleman 
discovered  the  true  measure  ? He  would  not  argue  further 
on  the  point,  as  he  hoped  that  he  had,  to  the  complete  satis- 
faction of  the  assembly,  proved  the  existence  of  Mahameru, 
and  demolished  what  the  rev.  gentleman  had  urged  against 
its  existence. 

The  rev.  gentleman,  amongst  other  matters  brought 
against  Buddhism,  stated  that  a certain  priest  of  Matara 
had  gone  mad  by  over-meditation ; that  was  not  strange, 
considering  that  meditation  pure  and  simple,  unaccom- 
panied by  philanthropic  works  and  true  piety,  is  said 
in  Buddhist  books  to  beget  madness.  Further,  what  had  a 
man’s  madness  or  sickness  to  do  with  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
a religion  ? 

The  very  mention  of  the  horrible  crimes  for  which 
punishments  had  been  provided  in  the  Vinaya,  the 
Buddhist  code  of  morals,  demonstrated  the  purity  of  Bud- 


* Some  of  the  Buddhist  priests  are  thoronghly  versed  in  the  'vvorks  of 
modern  scientists.  Spending  part  of  a day  at  the  Widyodaga  College  of 
Buddhist  professors  and  priests,  near  Colombo,  Ce.ilon.  and  conversing 
with  them  upon  the  nature  of  soul,  its  attributes  and  its  forces,  Professor 
H.  Sumangala.  sending  to  his  library,  called  my  attention  to  a passage  in 
Dr.  Louis  Buchner’s  work  on  “ Matter  and  Force.”  Some  of  the  books  of 
Bishop  Colenso  have  been  translated  into  the  Singhalese  of  Ceylon,  by  the 
Buddh  sts. 


92 


dhism,  since  it  sliewed  that  remedies  had  heen  provided  for 
every  emergency.  Of  course,  he  (the  Priest)  was  not  to 
blame  for  declaring  these  heinous  crimes  befoie  this  assembly , 
the  rev.  gentleman  "was  responsible  for  it,  and  his  ignorance 
of  what  he  w<as  speaking  about  was  more  than  once  shewn 
in  the  interpretation  he  had  given  to  some  of  the  passages 
appearing  in  Vinaya.  It  did  not,  of  course,  a|  pear  that  those 
priests  who  committed  offences  before  the  promulgation  of 
these  rules  were  puuished  with  rigour,  and  what  lawgiver 
would  punish  a man  for  an  offence,  though  it  may  have  been 
one  per  se,  before  the  enactment  of  the  ordinance  ? Let 
him  assure  them  once  for  all  that  no  blame  could  be 
attached  to  Buddhism,  or  any  other  religion,  because  of  the 
immorality  of  some  of  its  preachers.  Who  would  dream  of 
adducing  the  argument  that  Christianity  was  false  because 
the  wife  of  a well-known  Protestant  clergyman,  when  she  got 
ill  went  awhile  since  to  a distant  village,  and  with  the  con- 
nivance of  her  husband,  performed  a devil  ceremony,  though 
he  well  knew  of  such  an  instance?  Missionaries  coming  to 
this  country  have  not  always  proved  themselves  either 
saintly  or  moral.  How  will  the  rev.  gentleman  get  over  the 
innumerable  immoralities  mentioned  in  the  Bible  for  instance, 
that  affair  of  Lot  and  his  daughter,  the  incest  committed  by 
the  sons  and  daughters  of  Eve,  and  a host  of  others  ? 

The  pork  and  the  rice  did  not  cause  Buddha’s  death,  as 
alleged  by  the  rev.  gentleman,  but  the  incident  was  variously 
recorded  to  shew  the  nature  of  food  partaken  of  by  Buddha 
before  his  death.  He  would  have  died  at  the  appointed  day 
even  if  he  had  not  tasted  it.  Buddha  and  Buddhist  priests 
partake  of  what  is  put  before  them.  They  depend  upon 
alms.  They  take  neither  scrip  nor  purse.  They  hold  all  life 
sacred.  Some  will  not  taste  of  animal  food.  And  yet,  after 
all,  what  was  there  so  very  unclean  in  pork  ? was  it  not  better 
than  the  locusts  made  mention  of  in  the  Bible  that  were  eaten 
by  John  the  Baptist  ? 

He  had  now  to  answer  some  objections  raised  by  the 
Catechist  in  his  speech,  and  be  would  do  so  briefly.  His 
friend,  the  Catechist,  had  said  that  the  taking  refuge  in 
Buddha,  in  the  Dhamma  or  doctrines,  and  in  the  priesthood 


93 


was  all  in  vain,  l)ecanse  in  the  first  instance  Buddha  is  dead 
and  gone,  and  there  could  be  no  help  from  him  ; hut  if  the 
Catechist  understood  what  was  written  on  this  subject  aright, 
he  would  not  have  uttered  such  astonishing  folly.  Buddha’s 
death,  it  is  recorded,  consisted  of  three  stages,  the  death  of  the 
passions,  of  the  Skhandas,  which  he  had  previously  explained , 
and  of  his  relics.  The  death  of  his  passions  took  place  at  the 
foot  of  the  Bo-tree  on  his  attaining  Buddahood,  that  of  the 
Skhandas  was  at  the  Sal-grove  of  King  Mallava,  and  the  last 
stage,  that  of  the  complete  destruction  of  relics,  is  to  take 
place  5,000  years  after  Buddha’s  attaining  Nirvana,  that  is, 
about  2,500  years  from  the  present  time,  when  all  Buddha’s 
relics  will  be  brought  together  near  the  Jayamaha  Bo-tree  in 
India,  assume  the  form  of  a living  Buddha,  and  after  preach- 
ing for  a short  time  will  to  the  external  cease  to  exist.  Up  to 
such  time,  the  effect  of  Buddha’s  attaining  Nirvana  is  not 
complete,  and  much  merit  can  be  gained  by  those  who  with 
faith  make  oblations  and  reverence  these  relics  as  Buddb.a 
himself.  Buddha  is  yet  connected  with  all  that  he  ever 
touched,  and  all  that  he  ever  did  on  earth.  Therefore  to  say 
that  Buddha’s  influence  does  not  exist  at  the  present  time  is 
extremely  false. 

The  Sarana  in  Buddhist  Dharma  did  not  mean  taking 
refuge  in  Bana  books,  but  in  his  doctrines,  which  if 
one  believed  aright,  he  would  be  saved  in  a future 
state ; and  that  in  the  priesthood  did  not  apply  te  sinful 
priests,  but  to  those  devoid  of  sin  and  passions. 

As  to  the  Upassampada  controversy  which  the  Catechist 
said  was  being  carried  on  by  the  sects  of  Amerapura  and  Siam, 
he  could  assure  them  that  not  a single  priest  of  any  position 
of  either  party  took  any  part  in  this  controversy.  It  was 
simply  a controversy  carried  on  anonymously  by  two  in 
terested  parties  in  the  columns  of  The  Lakrivikirana. 

With  reference  to  the  charge  that  Buddha  was  not 
omniscient,  and  if  he  were  that  he  ought  to  have 
known  whether  Alarakalama  and  others  to  whom  he 
decided  to  preach,  were  alive  or  not,  he  (the  Priest) 
said  that  this  matter  was  brought  forward  at  every 
controversy  the  Christians  had  with  the  Buddhists;  and 


94 


as  it  was  on  every  occasion  satisfactorily  answered,  his 
present  explanation  would  be  brief.  It  was  true  that  Buddha 
was  omniscient,  but  bis  omniscience  was  not  of  such  an 
unpleasant  nature  as  that  ascribed  to  Jehovah,  who  it  is 
declared  sees  and  knows  everything  without  directing  his 
attention  to  it.  What  a filthy  vista  must  be  ever  open  to  him,  if 
without  any  effort  of  his,  all  the  misery,  filth,  sin,  unclean- 
ness, and  pollution  of  this  world  is  continually  seen  by  him  ! 
How  could  anyone  be  happy  if  compelled  to  witness  all  the 
misery  and  dirt  of  this  earth  ? Did  they  not  consider  that 
Jehovah  suffered  more  misery  thus  than  in  hell  if,  being  in 
heaven,  he  necessarily  witnessed  all  this  ? Buddha’s  omnis- 
cience was.  however,  far  different ; he  only  discovered  and  saw 
what  he  wanted  to  by  directing  his  power  to  it.  True,  from  his 
past  experience  of  Alarakalama  and  another,  he  determined 
upon  preaching  his  doctrines  to  them  as  being  men  who  were 
capable  of  understanding  them ; but  as  speedily  as  this 
determination  was  made  a god  intimated  to  him  that  those 
personages  had  died , and  then  it  is  said  that  he  exercised 
his  power  of  omniscience,  and  saw  even  the  state  in  which 
Alarakalama  had  been  born  after  death  He  hoped  the  assem- 
bly now  understood  the  pleasant  and  rational  nature  of 
Buddha’s  omniscience ; and  lor  the  Christian  party  to  say 
that  he  did  not  possess  this  power,  simply  because  he  did  not 
exercise  it,  was  like  saying  that  a man  who  had  full  power 
of  vision  was  blind  because  he  did  not  turn  his  eyes  to  a 
certain  object.  Sc  much  for  Buddha’s  omniscience. 

Now  a word  touching  Christianity.  His  (the  Priest’s) 
object  in  engaging  in  this  controversy  was  simply  the 
ascertainment  of  truth.  He  knew  that  Buddhism  was  true, 
and  he  had  come  to  defend  it ; but  he  was  not  so  prejudiced 
in  its  favour  as  not  to  be  open  to  connction,  and  even  to 
embrace  Christianity,  if  they  were  able  to  prove  it  to  be  true , 
but  what  was  there  in  it  to  be  believed  ? 

Why  should  the  Christians  lay  so  much  stress  on 
the  death  of  Christ,  who  had  been  killed  by  the  authori- 
ties for  attempting  to  rise  in  rebellion  against  the 
Homan  Empire?  What  else  could  the  “powers”  do. to  a 
man  who  had  openly  advised  his  followers  to  sell  even  theii 


95 


clothes  and  provide  themselves  with  swords!  and  whose 
crime,  according  to  the  inscription  placed  on  the  cross,  was 
that  of  styling  himself  the  King  of  the  Jews ! — a nation 
then  under  the  Roman  Empire. 

Besides,  how  unsatisfactory  was  the  evidence  as 
to  his  bodily  resurrection.  The  first  witness  they 
had  to  testify  to  this  all-important  event,  according 
to  Mark  xvi.  9,  was  Mary  Magdalene,  who,  they  would 
remember,  was  a woman  who  had  at  one  time  been 
possessed  of  seven  devils!  What  weight  could  be  attached 
to  the  evi  fence  of  such  a mad  woman  The  fact  was  that 
Christ’s  body  was  removed  from  the  tomb  by  his  disciples  on 
the  night  when  there  were  no  guards,  and  how  significant 
were  the  words  in  the  Scriptures  that  even  at  that  time  it  was 
rumoured  that  his  body  had  been  “stolen”  away?  Well, 
if  they  were  satisfied  with  this  resurrection  of  Christ,  they 
should  believe  it  by  all  means  ! 

The  Christians  declare  that  G^d’s  spirit  will  be  with 
those  who  believe  on  him.  He  (the  Priest)  did 
not  deny  belief  in  a Creator,  bi.t  admitted  that  he 
owed  his  existence  to  one ; but  why  should  man  be  allowed 
to  become  the  enemy  of  the  Creator  which,  according  to  the 
Bible,  he  now  was  ? The  Christians’  theory  of  a Creator  was 
false,  and  he  would  presently  explain  to  them  who  the  true 
Creator  was,  in  w'hom  he  believed,  and  what  he  had  to  say 
would  be  borne  out  even  by  the  Scripture  account  of  the 
creation.  He  must  say  that  this  part  of  the  Bible  was  most 
prudently  written  by  one  who  was  in  no  way  ignorant.  It 
was  there  said  that  the  spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of 
the  waters,  and  why  should  this  fact  have  been  mentioned  if 
not  to  shew  that  the  acting  of  this  spirit  on  the  water  was 
the  cause  of  all  animal  and  vegetable  life  ? This  was 
certainly  so.  The  action  of  air  on  water  always  produced 
animal  life ; if  a cocoanut,  which  usually  remains  on  the  tree 
without  rotting  for  nine  or  ten  months,  be  pierced  through 
and  air  be  allowed  to  enter  into  it,  the  water  inside  was 
sure  to  breed  worms ; and  so  long  as  air  could  be  excluded 
from  water,  there  was  no  generation  of  any  insect.  Like- 
wise in  this  instance,  “ the  spirit  of  God,”  as  it  was 


96 


called,  acted  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,  and  it  produced 
auimal  life. 

The  origin  of  all  species  was  then,  even  according  to  the 
Bible,  “breath,”  or  air,  with  which  was  associated  heat  and 
water.  To  these  three,  air,  heat,  and  water,  by  whatever  name 
known,  whether  Brahma,  Vishnu,  and  Iswara,  or  God,  Son,  and 
lloly  Ghost,  were  attributable  the  origin  of  species.  These, 
so  far  as  would  be  comprehended,  were  their  only  creator ; 
and  him  he  v'ould  reverence ; and  as  neither  air,  nor  water, 
nor  heat  could  produce  alone  without  the  aid  of  the  other, 
but  were  co-existent,  and  so  closely  associated  with  each 
other  that  they  could  not  be  said  to  have  separate  existences, 
the  Christians  were  justified  in  saying  that  though  there  are 
three  beings,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  yet  they 
were  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  These,  however,  were 
not  beings,  but  states.  There  is  one  Absolute  Spirit  in  and 
over  all. 

It  was  also  declared  in  the  Bible  that  Satan  tempted 
Adam  and  Eve  to  eat  of  the  forbidden  frmt.  Here 
he  was  certain  that  “ Satan  ” meant  lust,  and  “ eating  the 
forbidden  fruit  ” signified  carnal  knowledge,  which  produced 
child-birth  and  all  the  other  baneful  consequences  mentioned 
in  the  Bible.  “ Eating  the  forbidden  fruit  ” could  mean 
nothing  else,  for  if  sorrow  in  child-bearing  was  the  punish- 
ment for  actually  eating  the  fruit,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the 
words,  how  could  they  account  for  the  agony  that  many  mem- 
bers of  the  brute  creation  suffer  when  giving  birth  to  their 
young  ? For  instance,  the  travail  the  Polongas  suffer  is  so 
great  that  they  sometimes  burst  whilst  giving  birth  to  their 
young.  Had  they  also  eaten  of  the  forbidden  fruit  ? Such 
was  Christianity  ! It  was  full  of  irrational  and  unreasonable 
notions. 

But  as  for  Buddhism,  the  most  eminent  had  in  all  ages 
given  their  testimony  in  favour  of  it.  The  gi’eat  doctors  of  the 
science  of  medicine,  of  the  efficacy  of  which  there  can  be  only 
one  opinion,  the  originators  of  ethics,  the  propounders  of  that 
important  and  wonderful  science,  astrology,  by  which  even 
the  date  of  the  death  of  a man  could  be  accurately  foretold, 
not  to  mention  details,  and  the  names  of  learned  men,  always 


97 


invoked  tke  aid  of  BuddTia  and  extolled  tlie  praises  of  him 
and  of  his  religion,  in  every  one  of  their  works. 

Buddhism  inculcated  the  purest  morality  and  urged  the 
necessity  of  self-denial,  self-sacrifice,  and  charity.  It  encou- 
raged peace.  It  tolerated  all  religions  in  its  midst.  It  had 
nothing  to  fear.  It  pleaded  of  men  to  follow  the  example  of 
Holy  Buddha,and  pointed  the  sick  and  the  sorrowing  to  the 
blissful  state  of  Nirvana.  Quantities  of  books  could  be  adduce'1 
in  proof  of  these  teachings,  but  it  was  needless  to  so  do,  as  he 
had,  he  hoped,  to  the  complete  satisfaction  of  his  auditory, 
proved  the  truth  of  Buddhism  and  the  falsity  of  Christianity. 
He  also  trusted  that  they  had  not  forgotten  the  nature  of  the 
answers  adduced  by  the  opposite  side,  to  meet  the  objection'; 
raised  by  him ; and  lastly,  he  would  now  earnestly  beg  of 
them  to  bear  these  things  in  mind,  and  always  take  refuge  in 
Holy  Buddha. 

Scarcely  had  the  last  words  of  the  above  lecture  bee. 
uttered,  when  cries  of  “ Sadu  ” ascended  from  the  thousancki 
who  were  present.,  Endeavours  were  made  by  the  handfik 
of  police  to  keep  order,  but  nothing  induced  them  to  cease 
their  vociferous  cries  until,  at  the  request  of  the  learned 
High  Priest  of  Adam’s  Peak,  the  Priest  Migettuwatte 
again  rose,  and  with  a wave  of  his  hand,  beckoned  to  th'- 
men  to  be  quiet,  when  all  was  still.” 


Eemaeks. 

Thus  ends  a very  spirited  discussion,  in  which  a Buddhist 
priest — called  a “ heathen,” — appealing  to  various  Bibles,  to 
reason,  and  to  the  common  sense  of  the  gathered  thousands, 
bravely  met  a Christian  minister  in  a square  face-to-face  con- 
troversy. The  reading  deeply  interested  me;  the  more  so,  per- 
haps, from  perusing  it  in  Ceylon,  near  the  spot  where  it  trans- 
pired. The  only  thing  that  seriously  mars  the  flow  of  thought 
while  turning  over  the  pages  is  the  bitterness,  and  even 
offensive  personalities,  occasionally  indulged  in  by  the  other- 
wise eloquent  disputants.  Even  if  the  Christians — as  I was 

7 


93 


credibly  mformed — were  the  aggressive  party  in  commencing 
the  caustic,  brow-beating  style  of  argument,  the  Buddhist 
Priest  was  hardly  justifiable  in  following  the  example.  It 
was  a bad  one.  Peace,  calmness,  and  contemplation  con- 
stitute practically  the  very  genius  of  Buddhism.  And  in  all 
religions  it  is  the  better  way  to  return  good  for  evil,  and  kind 
for  bitter  words.  The  Quaker  poet  of  America  wrote  these 
telKng  lines ; — 

“ The  truth’s  worst  foe  is  he  who  claims 
To  act  as  God’s  avenger, 

And  dreams,  beyond  his  sentry  beat, 

The  crystal  walls  in  danger. 

Who  sets  for  heresy  his  traps 
Of  verbal  quirk  and  quibble, 

And  weeds  the  garden  of  the  Lord 
With  Satan’s  borrowed  dibble.” 

Both  Gautama  Buddha  and  Jesus  not  only  taught,  or  laid 
down,  the  principle  of  returning  blessing  for  cursing,  but 
they  beautifully  exemplified  their  teachings  in  lives  of 
tenderest  charity  and  forgiveness. 

“ Before  and  during  the  Yedic  era,”  writes  the  scholarly 
Sir  M.  Coomara  Swamy,  “ it  was  the  shedding  of  blood, 
the  sacrifice  of  man  or  beast,  the  oblations  of  butter  and  milk, 
the  worship  of  fire  and  the  warring  of  elements,  which 
marked  the  awakening  of  the  supernatural  sentiment  in  the 
Hindu  breast.  But  anon  a change  came  over  the  land. 
Peace,  gentleness,  and  all  the  mild  virtues  gained  the  ascend- 
ant. True  sacrifice,  it  was  taught,  was  self-sacrifice.  The 
preparation  for  heaven  consisted  in  the  destruction  of  all  evil 
passions.  And  the  greatest  happiness,  it  was  inculcated, 
consisted  in  a life  of  philosophic  trust  and  quiet.” 

As  a sample  of  Gautama  Buddha’s  sermonising,  I select 
the  following  from  the  Khappavisana  Sutta,  and  the  com- 
mentaries. The  discourse  was  delivered  by  this  Indian  sago, 
so  it  seems,  at  the  request  of  Ananda,  a disciple  of 
considerable  distinction. 

“Seek  first  for  the  true  path,  and  when  finding, 
diligently  follow  in  it.  The  true  hero,  abandoning  the 
vanity  of  life,  and  fors..Aug  the  foolish  ways  of  the  world, 


99 


flings  ofi“  tlie  “bands  of  the  household  like  a kovilara  tree  its 
leaves,  and  walks  alone.  He  who  has  houses,  and  fields,  and 
.cattle,  and  children  grieves ; but  he  who  is  content,  who  has 
no  object  of  selfish  desires,  does  not  grieve.  The  greatest  is 
he  who,  desiring  the  least,  gives  the  most.  Humility  is 
better  than  honour.  ...  I learned  a lesson  from  one  who 
sat  calm  and  happy  by  the  way-side,  asking  alms  of  the  rich 
that  he  might  bestow  them  upon  the  poor.  . . . The  Brah- 
mans, protected  by  virtue,  were  not  'injured  by  others. 
They  were  invincible.  None  ever  stopped  them  at  the  doors 
of  their  houses.  Formerly  they  practised  celibacy  from 
their  youth  up  to  their  forty- eighth  year.  The  more  con- 
seerated  continued  pure  unto  the  end  of  life.  He  who  frees 
himself  from  lasciviousness,  refuses  to  reeount  worthless 
stories,  abandons  inordinate  laughter,  and  yields  not  to 
greediness,  worldliness,  and  hypocrisy,  becomes  established 
in  peace,  and  knows  what  constitutes  the  true  essenee  of 
wisdom  and  peacefulness.  . . . Good  friends  may  be  ad- 
mitted into  one’s  company ; but  not  obtaining  such  friends, 
let  one  subsist  upon  pure  food,  engage  in  prayer,  and  walk 
alone.  ...  I lived  for  a night  on  the  banks  of  the  Mahi ; 
the  house  was  roofless,  the  fire  was  extinguished  by  the  rain, 
and  yet  I was  happy,  because  free  from  anger,  free  from 
stubbornness,  free  from  passions.”  “ Like  an  ox  that  has 
broken  its  bindings,  like  an  elephant  that  has  broken  the 
galucehi  creeper,  I have  broken  the  chain  of  worldly  attach- 
ment. I shall  not  return  for  re-birth.  I shall  enter  Nir- 
vana.” . . . “ My  mind  is  free  from  passions,  is  released  from 
the  follies  of  the  world,  has  long  been  under  training,  is 
under  thorough  control ; there  is  no  sin  whatever  in  me.  I 
have  obtained  the  victory.” 

Thus  spake  Buddha  to  Anauda,  and  other  disciples. 


7-2 


£ I^ii  t’j-$0fti4s/r^iiiiStiMiift‘iiL  iimitti*  T*Tf|'‘r'ff^jri  I I ifMfi 

- ,'  K • ,»f‘^  i*  ■• 


«i 


lu*C 


'S-« 


i 


♦/  •' 


i 


WORKS  OF  J.  M.  PEEBLES,  M.  D. 


Seers  of  the  Ages. 

Sixth  Edition.— This  work,  treating  of  ancient  Seers  and  Sages;  of 
Spiritualism  in  India,  Egypt,  China,  Persia,  Syria,  Greece  and  Rome;  of 
the  modern  manifestations,  witli  the  doctrines  of  Spirituaiists  concerning 
God,  Jesus,  Inspiration,  Faitli,  Judgment,  Heaven,  Hell,  Evil  Spirits, 
Love,  the  Resurrection,  and  Immortality,  has  become  a standard  work  in 
this  and  other  coimtries.  Price,  §2,00,  postage  16  cents. 

Travels  Around  the  "World; 

OR,  WHAT  I SAW  IX  THE  SOUTH  SEA  ISLANDS,  CHINA,  INDIA, 
ARABIA,  EGYPT  AND  PALESTINE. 

This  intensely  interesting  volume  of  over  four  hundred  pages,  fresh  with 
the  gleanings  of  something  like  two  years’ travel  in  Europe  and  Oriental 
Lands,  is  now  ready  lor  delivery.  As  a work  embodying  personal  experi- 
ences, descriptions  of  Asiatic  countries  and  observations  relating  to  the 
manners,  customs,  laws,  rekgions  and  spiritual  instincts  of  different  na- 
tions, this,  in  some  respects,  is  the  mo.st  important  and  stirring  book  that 
has  appeared  from  ;he  author’s  pen.  Price,  §2,00,  postage  16  cents. 

Spiritual  Harp. 

A fine  collection  of  vocal  music  for  the  choir,  congregation  and  social 
circle:  is  especially  adapted  for  use  at  Grove  Meetings.  Picnics.  &c.  Edited 
by  ,1.  M.  Peebles  and  J.  O.  Barrftt.  E.  H.  Bailey,  Musical  Editor.  Price, 
§2,00,  postage  14  cents;  full  gilt,  §3,00. 

Jesus— Myth,  Man  or  God? 

Did  Jesus  Christ  exist?  Wh.at  are  the  proofs?  Was  he  man,  begotten 
like  other  men  ? What  Julian  and  Celsus  said  of  him.  The  Moral  Influence 
of  Christianity  and  Heathenism  compared.  These  and  other  subjects  are 
critically  discussed.  Price,  cloth,  75  cents,  postage  5 cents;  paper,  50  cents. 

"Witch-Poison ; 

OR,  THE  REV.  DR.  BALDWIN’S  SERMON  RELATING  TO 
Wil'CHES,  HELL  AND  THE  DEVIL.  REVIEWED. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  severe  and  caustic  things  published  against  the 
Orthodox  system  of  religion.  Price,  35  cents,  postage  3 cents. 

Spiritualism  Defined  and  Defended. 

Being  an  Introductory  Lecture  delivered  in  Temperance  Hall,  Melbourne, 
Australia.  Price,  15  cents,  postage  l cent. 

The  Spiritual  Teacher  and  Songster. 

Designed  for  congregational  singing,  lyceumsand  circles;  as  well  as  giv- 
ing a general  defluitioii  of  Spiritualism.  Price,  15  cents. 

The  Conflict  between  Spiritualism  and  Darwinism. 

A fearless  and  vigorously  written  Pamphlet  of  forty  pages,  treating  of  the 
origin  of  man;  the  early  appearance  of  the  foetus;  the  unity  of  the  human 
species;  the  line  of  demarcation  between  monkeys  and  men;  the  immortal- 
ity of  insects,  animals,  &c.  Price,  20  cents. 

Christ  the  Corner-Stone  of  Spiritualism 

This  Pamphlet  treats  of  the  spiritual  marvels  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  phil- 
osophy of  salvation  through  Christ,  the  belief  of  Spiritualists  and  the 
church  of  the  future.  Price,  10  cents. 

The  Great  Ceylon  Discussion  between  the  Buddhists 
and  Christians; 

With  an  introduction  and  comments  by  J.  M.  Peebles.  Price,  25  cents. 

Our  Homes  and  Our  Employments  Hereafter; 

OR,  WHAT  A HUNDRED  SPIRITS  SAY  ABOUT  LIFE  IN  THE 
SPIRIT-WORLD.  « 

This  book  is  now  in  press,  and  will  soon  be  ready  for  delivery. 

For  sale  by  COLBY  & RICH,  9 Montgomery  Place,  Boston,  Mass. 


Modern  Spiritualism. 

By  EPES  SARGENT. 


PLANCHETTE ; THE  DESPAIR  OF  SCIENCE. 

Being  a Fall  Acconnt  of  Modern  Sniiltnalisni. 

t*RiCB,  IN  Illuminated  Paper  Covers,  $1;  in  Green  Cloth,  $1.25.  Postage,  16c. 
A New  Edition,  just  issued  by  Roberts  Brothers,  Boston. 


This  volume  should  be  properly  called  “ A History  of  Modern  Spir 
Itualism,”  for  it  is  a thorough  and  careful  survey  of  the  whole  subject 
of  well-attested  phenomena  believi.d  to  be  spiritual. 

Prof.  WM.  CROOKES,  F.  R.  S.,  of  London,  the  celebrated  chemist, 
whose  scientific  verifications  of  the  spiritual  phenomena  are  now  cre- 
ating such  a sensation,  writes,  under  date  of  April  17,  1874,  — 

Planchette  was  the  first  book  I read  on  Spiritualism,  and  it  still  remains 
in  my  opinion,  the  best  work  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  uninitiated.” 

GEO.  WM.  CURTIS,  in  Harper’s  Weekly,  says  of  it, — 

“ It  is  a copious  and  popular  but  faithful  summitry  of  the  phenomena 
and  theories.  The  ample  knowledge  and  literary  skill  with  which  the 
subject  is  treated  make  this  volume  an  indispensable  manual  to  all 
who  are  attracted  to  this  speculation,  and  it  will  be  read  with  great 
interest  by  the  skeptic  as  well  as  by  the  believer.” 

The  Rev.  Dr.  BELLOMS,  in  the  Liberal  Christian,  says  of  it,  — 

“ It  sets  forth  many  important  considerations  witli  regard  to  tlie  phi- 
losophy of  the  mind,  while  its  historical  notices  of  the  development  of 
Spiritualism  during  the  last  twenty  years  give  a more  complete  and 
impartial  view  of  the  phenomena  in  question  than  has  thus  far  been 
presented  to  the  public.” 

The  New  York  Express  says, — 

“ This  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  startling  works  of  our  sensational 
age.  It  purports  to  give  a duly  authenticated  narration  of  spiritual  mani- 
festations, which  are  beyond  the  bounds  of  credulity  by  any  calm  think 
ing  reader ; and  yet  the  asserted  facts  are  given  witli  sucli  an  apparent 
truthfulness  and  distinctness  of  detail,  and  tlie  learned  and  distinguished 
namf  s connected  with  the  scenes  described  are  of  such  weight,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  deny  the  conviction  impressed  upon  tlie  mind  that 
either  Spiritualism  is  one  of  the  greatest  delusions  o ' the  age,  or  that 
it  is  indeed  a new  manifestation  of  supernatural  power,  deserving  the 
investigations  of  our  theologians  and  teachers.  The  work,  from  its 
extreme  interest,  will  amply  repay  a careful  perusal.” 

The  Boston  Journal  says,— 

“ Mr.  Sargent  has  here  collected  a vast  amount  of  information,  and 
whoever  wishes  to  have  an  intelligent  epitome  of  the  whole  history  of 
modern  Spiritualism  will  find  it  in  this  volume.” 

For  Sale  by 

ITo.  9 Llontgomery  Place,  Boston,  Mass. 


NOW  HEADY. 


A BIOGRAPHY 

OF 

MRS.  J.  II.  CONANT, 

The  World’s  Medium  of  the  Nineteenth 
Century. 

A HISTORY  OF  HER  MEDIUMSHIP 

From  Childhood  to  the  Present  Time; 

BEING  A NiVERATIVE  OF  THE 

Personal  Experiences,  Sharp  Trials,  and  Liberalizing 
Victories  achieved  in  the  cause  of  Human 
Reason  and  Sj>iritual  Knowledge. 


Let  the  heart-stricken  read  it,  and  be  comforted ; 

Let  the  earth-weary  peruse  it,  and  be  glad ; 

Let  the  world’s  w'orkers  explore  it,  and  be  encouraged ; 

Let  the  doubter  scan  its  incontrovertible  testimony,  and  he  confounded ; 
Let  the  true  man  and  woman,  wherever  abiding,  recognize  in  it  the 
life-line  of  a kindred  soul. 


_A.nSTID  E.ZCHI, 

PUBLISHERS, 

NO.  9 MONTGOMERY  PLACE, 

BOSTON,  MASS. 


FLASHES  OF  LIGHT 

FROM 

THE  SPIRIT-LAND, 

THROCGH  THE  MEDIUMSHTP  OF 

MRS.  J.  H.  CONANT. 

COMPIIXD  AND  AURANGED  BE 

ALLEN  PUTNAM, 

Author  of  “ Spirit-'Works;  ” “ Natty,  a Spirit;”  “ ilesmerism,  Spiritualism, 
■Witchcraft,  and  Miracle ; ” Etc.,  Etc. 


This  comprehensive  volume  of  more  than  four  hundred  pages 
will  present  to  the  reader  a wide  range  of  useful  information 
upon  subjects  of  the  utmost  importance. 

THE  DISEMBODIED  MINDS 

of  many  distinguished  lights  of  the  past 

HERE  SPEAK 

to  the  embodied  intelligences  of  to-day,  proclaiming  their  views 
as  derived  from  or  modified  by  the  Freedom  from  Artificial 
Constraint,  and  the  ADDED  LIGHT  OF  THE  SPIRIT- 
WORLD,  concerning 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN, 

the  duty  devolving  upon  each  individual,  and  the 

DESTINY  OF  THE  RACE. 

As  an  Encyclopaedia  of  Spiritual  Information,  this  work  is 
ivithout  a superior. 

Price  $1.50.  Postage  22  cents. 


COLBY  AND  RICH,  PUBLISHERS, 
9 Montgomery  Placa^  Boston. 


K- 


If-,' 


^ f - ’ 

t' 


r* 


• cO.  ‘ 


L^i. 


r S 


r -v 


4.  -If 


I 

V 


WORKS  OF  J._M^PEEBLES,  M.D. 

Travels  around  the  World ; 

OR,  WHAT  I SAW  IN  THE  SOUTH  SEA  ISLANDS,  CHINA,  INDIA, 
ARABIA,  EGYPT,  AND  PALESTINE. 

This  intensely  interesting  volume  ol  over  four  hundred  pages,  fresh  with  the  gleanings  of 
something  like  two  years’  travel  in  Europe  and  Oriental  Lands,  is  now  ready  for  delivery. 

As  a work  embodying  personal  experiences,  descriptions  of  Asiatic  countries,  and  obser- 
vations relating  to  the  manners,  customs,  laws,  religions,  and  spiritual  instincts  of  different 
nations,  this,  in  some  respects,  is  the  most  important  and  stirring  book  that  has  appeared 
from  the  author's  pen.  Price  los.  6d.  • 

Seers  of  the  Ages. 

Seventh  Edition. — This  work,  treating  of  ancient  Seers  and  Sages  ; of  Spiritualism  in 
India,  Egypt,  China,  Persia,  Syria,  Greece,  and  Rome  ; of  the  modern  manifestations,  with 
the  doctrines  of  Spiritualists  concerning  God,  Jesus,  Inspiration,  Faith,  Judgment,  Heaven, 
Hell,  Evil  Spirits,  Love,  the  Resurrection,  and  Immortality,  has  d^come  a standard  work  in 
(his  and  other  countries.  Price  2 dots.  32  cents  ; or  5s. 

The  Conflict  between  Spiritualism  and  Darwinianism. 

A fearless  and  vigorously  written  Pamphlet  of  about  40  pages,  treating  of  the  origin  of 
man:  the  early  appearance  of  the  foetus;  the  unity  of  the  human  species;  the  line  of 
demarcation  between  monkeys  and  men  ; the  immortality  of  insects,  animals,  &c.  Price  20 
cents  ; or  is. 

Christ  the  Corner-stone  of  Spiritualism. 

This  Pamphlet  treats  of  the  spiritual  marvels  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  philosophy  of 
salvation  through  Christ,  the  belief  of  Spiritualists,  and  the  Church  of  the  future.  Price  6d, 

Jesus— Myth,  Man,  or  God?  (Reprinting.) 

Did  Jesus  Chrisi exist?  What  are  the  prdofs?  Was  he  begotten  like  other  men? 
What  JuHan  and  C’elsus  said  of  him.  The  Moral  Influence  of  Christianity  and  Heathenism 
compared.  'These  and  other  subjects  are  critically  discussed.  Price  50  cents,  postage  4 cents  ; 
or  IS.  6d.,  cloth  2s.  6cl. 

Buddhism  and  Christianity  Face  to  Face  ; 

OR,  THE  GREAT  CEYLON  DISCUSSION  BETWEEN  THE  BUDDHISTS* 

AND  CHRISTIANS; 

With  an  introduction  and  comments  by  J.  M.  Peebles,  Price  is.’ 

Spiritual  Harp. 

A fine  collection  of  vocal  music  for  the  choir,  congresration,  and  social  circle ; is 
especially  adapted  for  use  at  Grove  Meetings,  Picnics,  &c.  By  J.  M.  Peebles  and 
J.  O.  Barrett.  E.  H.  Bailey,  Musical  Editor.  Price  8s. 

Spiritualism  Deflned  and  Defended. 

Being  an  Introductory  Lecture  delivered  in  Temperance  Hall,  Melbourne,  Australia. 
Price  15  cents,  postage  1 cent  ; or  6d. 

The  Spiritual  Teacher  and  Songster. 

Designed  for  congregational  singing,  lyceums  ami  circles ; as  well  as  giving  a general 
definition  of  Spiritualism.  Piice  25  cents  ; or  is. 

Witch-Poison ; 

OR,  THE  REV.  DR.  BALDWIN'S  SERMON  RELATING  TO  WITCHES, 
HELL,  AND  THE  DEVIL,  REVIEWED. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  severe  and  caustic  things  published  against  the  orthodox  system 
of  religion.  Price  35  cents,  postage  4 cents  ; or  2s. 

The  Gadarene. 

THE  OBSESSIONAL  INFLUENCES  OF  UNDEVELOPED  AND  EVIL 
SPIRI  rS,  AND  HOW  TO  DISPOSSESS  THEM. 

By  J.  M.  Peebles  and  J.  O.  Barrett.  Price  1 dol,  25  cents  ; or,  4s.  6d. 

The  Conflict  between  Sectarists  and  Scientists; 

OR,  THE  MORAL  INFLUENCES  OF  BUDDHIS.M,  MOHAMMEDANISM,  AND 
CHRISTIANITY  COMPARED. 

Our  Homes  and  our  Employments  in  the  Future  World. 
The  Radical  Doctrines  of  Spiritualists,  Shakers  and  Quakers. 

These  last  three  works  ready  for  the  press. 

These  books  are  for  sale  by  the  writer ; or  for  sale  wholesale  and  retail  by  the  publishers, 
CoLBV  & Rich,  at  No.  9,  Montgomery-  Place,  corner  of  Province  Street  (lower  floor), 
Boston,  Mass.,  and  Ja.mes  Burns,  15,  Southampton  Row,  London. 


